R v Peter; R v Banu; R v Ingui

The appeal was against the conviction of Banu, Peter, and Ingui, three defendants convicted in the District Court of Queensland of various counts of rape. The appeal concerned the sufficiency of the evidence, the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the fairness of the joint trial. The complainant alleged that she was raped by the appellants on 28 December 2017. The central issue was whether the jury was properly directed and whether the evidence was sufficient to convict each appellant. For Banu, the court had to consider if there was sufficient evidence to prove his involvement beyond reasonable doubt, given the lack of evidence about his conversation with the other appellants or his knowledge of the offending. Peter's appeal focused on the accuracy of the complainant's identification of him, which was inconsistent with her earlier statements and descriptions, as well as the adequacy of the Domican direction provided to the jury. Ingui's appeal raised issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of the crimes, given the inconsistencies in the complainant's identification of him and her state of intoxication during the events.

The court found that for Banu, the evidence did not support a conviction as it did not establish his knowledge of the offending or his intent to participate in the crime. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were set aside. For Peter, while the court acknowledged issues with the complainant's identification of him, it found that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Peter was one of the offenders based on the totality of the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed. In the case of Ingui, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the crimes due to the complainant's inconsistent identification of him and her state of intoxication. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were set aside.