R v Lee

The appellant, Lee, was convicted of one count of rape and one count of attempted rape. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdict was 'unsafe and unsatisfactory' due to several factors, including the complainant's failure to seek the help of a visitor present in the appellant's apartment, inconsistencies in her account regarding whether the appellant was wearing a condom, and the absence of injuries to her. Lee also argued that the failure to re-call the complainant and the absence of a missing witness constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appellant further contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, and whether the appellant's right to a fair trial was compromised by the absence of certain witnesses or the failure to re-call the complainant. The court had to determine if the appellant's arguments undermined the credibility of the complainant to such an extent that the verdict was unreasonable, and whether the absence of the witnesses or the failure to re-call the complainant resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the jury had properly considered all the evidence, including the inconsistencies and the absence of physical evidence, and had reasonably concluded that the appellant was guilty. The court held that the appellant had failed to show that the complainant's failure to seek help from a visitor or the inconsistencies in her account were so significant as to render the verdict unreasonable. Regarding the miscarriage of justice, the court found that the appellant's counsel had not sought to have the complainant re-called, and there was no evidence of instructions to do so. The court held that the absence of a missing witness and the failure to adduce evidence from the complainant's boyfriend did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offences and the appellant's lack of remorse.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.