R v FAR

The appellant appeals his convictions for various sexual offences against a child, including maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, rape, and indecent treatment. The jury found the appellant guilty on some counts but acquitted him on others. The appellant argues that the verdicts were unreasonable and that the trial judge erred in not adequately directing the jury on the use of evidence related to previous acquittals. The court must determine whether the verdicts were unreasonable and whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge’s direction.

The court considered whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, given the evidence presented. The court noted that the jury acquitted the appellant on some counts while convicting him on others, indicating that they carefully assessed the complainant's evidence. The court held that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable as they were open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on some counts while harbouring reasonable doubt on others. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury, which allowed them to consider the evidence without improperly weighting the acquittals, did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The jury's ability to acquit on some counts while convicting on others demonstrated their proper use of the evidence.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable, and the trial judge's direction did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed except for the counts on which the jury's verdicts were set aside, and a new trial was ordered for those counts. The court's decision highlights the importance of allowing juries to assess the credibility of complainants and the need for careful consideration before setting aside their verdicts.