R v DRG

The appellant, Mr Gray, appealed against his conviction by a jury of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, one count of rape, and one count of indecent assault. The appeal was based on the contention that the trial judge should have warned the jury that it was unsafe or dangerous to convict on uncorroborated evidence of the victim, that the trial judge made comments to the jury concerning medical evidence that constituted an error, and that the trial judge erred in directions to the jury concerning uncharged acts. The court was required to decide whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in the sense of ensuring a fair trial.

The court held that the trial judge's directions in relation to uncharged acts were deficient. The judge did not adequately bring home to the jury that in the circumstances there was likely to be little that Mr Gray could do other than simply deny that he had offended as alleged. The evidence of uncharged acts was important for the jury to understand the limited use to be made of such evidence. The deficiencies in the directions went to the heart of the case, notwithstanding the significance of the medical evidence. Therefore, there was a real risk of a miscarriage of justice as a result of the inadequacy in the directions. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a retrial was ordered.