R v MBX

In the case of R v MBX, the appellant was charged with three counts of anal rape. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the appellant contested the conviction and sought to appeal on various grounds, including the trial judge's handling of alternative verdicts and the adequacy of jury directions. The central issue was whether the trial judge correctly decided which verdicts to present to the jury and if the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient in light of the evidence presented.

The court examined whether the alternative verdict of attempted rape was appropriate given the evidence, and whether the trial judge should have left this to the jury's consideration. Additionally, the court assessed whether the trial judge erred in not including alternative verdicts of rape or indecent treatment for the jury. The court also scrutinised the trial judge's handling of the uncorroborated evidence of the child complainant and whether the judge adequately addressed the potential for childhood fantasy and the risk of miscarriage of justice.

The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in omitting the alternative verdict of attempted rape as it did not fairly arise from the evidence. The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and that the failure to give a Longman direction did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the evidence, though uncorroborated, was sufficient to support the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.