R v Fardon

The appellant in R v Fardon appealed his conviction for rape, arguing that the trial judge had erred in refusing to grant a no jury order due to potential adverse pre-trial publicity and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsatisfactory given the evidence presented. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in not making a no jury order, as requested by the appellant, and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory given the evidence. The appellant contended that the pre-trial publicity could have unduly influenced the jury's deliberations and that the evidence provided by the complainant was insufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The court considered the appellant's submissions on both grounds. Regarding the no jury order, the court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing the application, as there was no clear and convincing evidence that pre-trial publicity would affect the jury's impartiality. Concerning the jury's verdict, the court found that the evidence, while sufficient for a conviction, did not meet the threshold of being beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the evidence, particularly the complainant's account of non-consensual anal penetration, was not strong enough to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was entered.