R v Libke

The appeal before the Court of Appeal was brought by the defendant, Libke, against his convictions and sentences for sexual offences. The case arose from an incident where the defendant was found guilty of one count of rape and not guilty of two other counts of rape. The complainant, who had an intellectual impairment, was the central witness in the trial. The court was required to determine whether the verdicts were inconsistent, whether they were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and if the conduct of the prosecutor during the trial deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the sentence of eight years' imprisonment for each count was manifestly excessive.

The court began by examining the consistency of the verdicts. It noted that the acts of digital penetration that led to the guilty verdict occurred at a different time and under different circumstances to the acts of sexual intercourse that led to the not guilty verdicts. The court found the verdicts to be consistent as they pertained to distinct acts under different circumstances. Regarding the reasonableness of the verdicts, the court considered the complainant's affirmative response in cross-examination to a suggestion that she turned her legs towards the defendant to facilitate penetration. The court found that the complainant's video-taped interview, along with other evidence, did not render the verdict unreasonable. Finally, the court addressed the prosecutor's conduct during the cross-examination, finding that while the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction but granted leave to appeal against the sentence. The sentence of eight years' imprisonment for each count was deemed manifestly excessive, and the sentences were reduced to five years' imprisonment for each count.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, leave to appeal against the sentence be granted, the appeal against the sentence on counts 1, 2 and 4 be allowed, and the sentences of 8 years’ imprisonment on counts 1, 2 and 4 be set aside and sentences of 5 years’ imprisonment be substituted on each of counts 1, 2 and 4.