R v DBZ

In the case of R v DBZ, the appellant was convicted by a jury on 10 counts for various assaults and rapes of the complainant, with verdicts of guilty returned on counts 4-10 and no agreement reached on counts 1-3. The appellant appealed against the verdicts, arguing they were unreasonable due to the jury's failure to reach a verdict on counts 1-3 despite finding the appellant guilty on counts 4-10, which all occurred on the same occasion. The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to provide an adequate direction to the jury regarding the significant forensic disadvantage experienced due to the delay between the incident and the trial. Further, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred in allowing evidence of the history of the domestic relationship between the parties to be considered as propensity evidence, and that the evidence of a forensic medicine expert on signs and symptoms of non-fatal strangulation was inadmissible or should have been excluded due to its prejudicial nature.

The court examined whether the verdicts on counts 4-10 were unreasonable in light of the jury's failure to reach verdicts on counts 1-3. The court found that the jury's verdict on counts 4-10 demonstrated that they accepted the complainant's evidence. The court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the jury's verdicts on the ground that they were unreasonable. Regarding the alleged failure of the trial judge to address the forensic disadvantage due to delay, the court found that the direction given by the trial judge was adequate in the circumstances of the trial. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury to consider the relationship evidence as it was relevant to the context of the relationship and not as propensity evidence. Lastly, the court held that the evidence of the forensic medicine expert was within the expert's knowledge and experience and did not pose a risk of impermissibly bolstering the complainant's evidence. The court further held that the trial judge did not fail to direct the jury regarding the use to be made of the expert evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.