R v HAK

The appellant was found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of indecent assault. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury on several points. The appeal also challenged the sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal considered whether the judge had a duty to direct the Crown to obtain expert evidence regarding the complainant’s mental state, given she suffered from multiple personality disorder. The court examined whether the judge should have warned the jury about the reliability of the complainant’s evidence in the absence of such evidence.

The court found that the judge did not err in directing the jury to disregard a witness's hearsay and opinion allegations about the complainant's reliability. The summing up was deemed adequate, and the specific matters raised by the appellant did not warrant additional instructions to the jury. The court also concluded that the judge did not improperly consider the appellant's cross-examination approach and denial of the complainant's credibility in sentencing. The sentence of eight years for the rape charges was deemed not manifestly excessive, given the complainant's physical and mental frailty, the absence of forced entry or violence outside the sexual assault, and the appellant's lack of prior sexual offence history.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the sentence on count four was set aside, and a sentence of seven years imprisonment was substituted. This adjustment reflects the court's consideration of the mitigating factors and the overall circumstances of the case.