R v F, RPJ

The appeal concerned a conviction for indecent assault (count 1) in the District Court, where the appellant was found guilty by a majority jury verdict. He had been acquitted of charges of gross indecency and unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12 years. The sole ground of appeal argued was that the guilty verdict on count 1 was unreasonable and/or unsupported by the evidence, particularly when considered alongside the not guilty verdicts on the other counts.

The legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the jury's verdicts were so inconsistent as to render the conviction for indecent assault unreasonable, as contemplated by the principles established in *M v The Queen*. This required an examination of the evidence presented at trial, including the complainant's sworn testimony and the appellant's denials, in light of the jury's findings on each of the four counts.

The court reasoned that a jury is at liberty to return different verdicts on separate counts and is entitled to accept part of a witness's evidence while rejecting other parts. The complainant's evidence regarding the indecent assault (count 1) was described as more straightforward than her evidence concerning the other offences. For counts 3 and 4, the complainant's conclusion that the appellant had inserted his penis into her mouth was based on her own later inferences drawn from playing a "food game" and her increased understanding of sexual matters. The court found that a jury could reasonably accept her direct sensory evidence for count 1 but not be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt by her later inferences for counts 3 and 4, especially given her young age at the time and the delay in reporting. The court concluded that the verdicts were consistent with the jury having applied the separate consideration direction and taken a cautious approach to the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.