R v FAE

The appellant in this case was charged with maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16, rape, and two counts of indecently dealing with a child under 16. The jury could not agree on counts 1 and 2, entered a majority verdict of guilty on count 3, and unanimously acquitted on count 4. The Crown’s case relied heavily on the reliability of the complainant’s evidence. The appellant appealed against the conviction on count 3, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable due to its inconsistency with the jury's failure to agree on counts 1 and 2, and the acquittal on count 4. Additionally, the appellant argued that there had been a miscarriage of justice as the trial judge did not adequately caution the jury against giving undue weight to the complainant's evidence after replaying it, nor did the judge reiterate or summarise the appellant’s evidence.

The court examined whether the jury's guilty verdict on count 3 was unreasonable given their inability to reach a consensus on counts 1 and 2. The court considered the principle that inconsistent verdicts should be viewed with caution, especially when the reliability of the complainant's evidence is central to the case. Furthermore, the court reviewed the trial judge’s instructions to the jury regarding the weight to be given to the complainant's evidence after it was replayed. The court found that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury not to give undue weight to the complainant's evidence and neglected to summarise the appellant’s evidence, which could have led to a miscarriage of justice.

Given these findings, the court concluded that the appeal should be allowed. The conviction on count 3 was set aside, and a retrial was ordered on that count. This decision highlights the importance of consistent and fair jury instructions, particularly when the reliability of key evidence is in question. The court's ruling underscores the need for trial judges to adequately manage the presentation of evidence to ensure that the jury is not misled, which is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.