R v LBF

The appellant, LBF, was convicted by a jury of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16. The appellant was acquitted on four counts of rape and one count of choking in a domestic setting. The case came before the court on appeal against the conviction and sentence. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the verdicts of guilty for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and indecent treatment of a child under 16 were inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty for the remaining counts. The court considered whether there were aspects of the complainant’s evidence which may have caused a jury to question the reliability of her evidence that the charged acts were without her consent.

The court held that the determination of a ground of appeal asserting inconsistency in a jury’s verdict upon different counts, required a consideration of logic and reasonableness. The court noted that if the appellate court could properly reconcile the verdicts, a ground of appeal on the basis of inconsistency would be unsuccessful. The court further noted that respect for the function of the jury required appellate courts to be reluctant to accept submissions that verdicts were inconsistent in the sense described, and if there was a proper way by which an appellate court could reconcile the verdicts, allowing the court to conclude that the jury performed their functions as required, that conclusion would generally be accepted. The court held that the verdicts of guilty were not inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty for the remaining counts. The verdicts of guilty were consistent with an acceptance of the complainant’s evidence that the appellant maintained a sexual relationship with her, a 15-year-old girl. The verdicts of not guilty of the remaining counts were consistent with the jury affording the appellant the benefit of the doubt as to whether his sexual interactions with the complainant were without her consent. The verdicts of guilty were not an unacceptable affront to logic and common sense.

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were affirmed.