R v Lapins

Jason Norman Lapins was convicted in the District Court of one count of indecent assault, while being acquitted on two other counts related to the same complainant. The conviction was appealed on the basis that the guilty verdict on the first count was inconsistent with the acquittals on the other counts, and that the trial judge erred in accepting the jury's verdicts without first addressing a request for further directions. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdict of guilty on the first count was inconsistent with the acquittals on the second and third counts, and whether this inconsistency rendered the guilty verdict unsafe. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the interaction between the judge and the jury after the summing up left any questions unanswered, potentially risking a miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the judge provided clear instructions to the jury regarding the three separate counts and that there were significant differences in the evidence relevant to each count. The verdicts were not inconsistent, and the interaction between the judge and jury did not leave any unanswered questions. Therefore, there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.