R v Little

The appellant in this case was found guilty of three counts of rape but acquitted on one count of entering a dwelling and stealing a Medicare card and two mobile telephones. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the admission of evidence of prior convictions occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to decide whether the acquittal on the stealing charge rendered the convictions on the rape charges inconsistent and whether the similar fact evidence was admissible and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the record and found that the jury might have acquitted on the stealing charge because they considered that the evidence did not exclude a reasonable doubt about whether the appellant had taken both mobile phones. The court concluded that the acquittal did not rise to the point of requiring intervention to prevent a possible injustice and that the jury performed their functions as required. The court also found that the similar fact evidence was admissible despite its potentially prejudicial effect and that the admission of that evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions on the three counts of rape. The court found that the jury's acquittal on the stealing charge did not render the convictions on the rape charges inconsistent and that the similar fact evidence was properly admitted and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The court's decision was based on a careful examination of the evidence and the law and was consistent with established principles of criminal law and procedure.