R v Dunrobin

The case of R v Dunrobin involved an appeal against convictions on various counts of rape and other sexual offences. The appellant, Dunrobin, was convicted on count 3 of the indictment despite no evidence being presented in support of that count. Dunrobin contended that the verdict on count 3, without any supporting evidence, undermined the credibility of all other verdicts, thereby constituting a "poisoned well." Additionally, Dunrobin argued that the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury regarding the defence of honest and reasonable, but mistaken belief as to consent, as provided under section 24 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

The court had to determine whether the jury was justified in concluding beyond reasonable doubt that Dunrobin was guilty of the offences charged, given the absence of evidence for count 3 and the potential impact of this on the other counts. The court also needed to assess whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding the defence of consent were sufficient or if more comprehensive directions could have influenced the verdicts.

The court found that the failure to provide evidence in support of count 3, combined with the potential misdirection regarding the defence of consent, created a significant risk that the jury's verdicts were unreliable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions in respect of counts 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 were set aside, and a new trial was ordered for those counts.