R v HEADING

The appellant, R v HEADING, was convicted by a jury on two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the admission of certain evidence from the complainant at trial was prejudicial and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial. The appeal was heard by Sulan, David, and Stanley JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the complainant's evidence regarding the Mullighan Inquiry, and the trial judge's subsequent directions to the jury, were sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The appellant contended that this evidence allowed the jury to infer that he had abused another child, separate from the charges before the court, thereby irreparably tainting him in their eyes. The court also considered whether the trial judge's directions were adequate and if a mistrial was the only appropriate remedy for the prejudice suffered by the appellant.

The court found that the complainant's evidence concerning the Mullighan Inquiry, particularly in conjunction with the appellant's age, was indeed prejudicial. The judges determined that this prejudice could not be adequately rectified by the trial judge's directions, which they also found to be inadequate. Consequently, the court concluded that a mistrial was the only appropriate action to cure the prejudice. The court also refused permission to appeal on the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable or against the weight of evidence, finding that it was open to the jury to prefer the complainant's evidence despite inconsistencies.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and the proceedings were remitted for a retrial in the District Court.