R v Phillips

The appeal in this matter was brought by the appellant, who had been convicted of multiple counts of sexual offences, including rape and unlawful carnal knowledge. The trial resulted in acquittals on some counts, convictions on others, and the imposition of concurrent sentences. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on count 4, asserting that he was deprived of a fair trial due to conduct by the trial judge’s associate, and that the conviction of rape on count 4 was inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 1 and 3, where the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of unlawful carnal knowledge. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the conduct attributed to the trial judge's associate influenced the jury's decision, and whether the conviction of rape on count 4 was inconsistent with the jury’s verdicts on counts 1 and 3, where the jury found the appellant guilty of the lesser offence of unlawful carnal knowledge instead of rape. The court also needed to determine if the sentence imposed on count 4 should be altered in light of the substituted conviction.

The court found that the conduct of the trial judge’s associate did not influence the jury's decision, as there was no evidence that the conduct had any impact on the jury. However, the court did find that the conviction of rape on count 4 was inconsistent with the jury’s acquittals on counts 1 and 3 in favour of convictions of unlawful carnal knowledge. The court noted that the jury acquitted the appellant of rape on counts 1 and 3 and convicted him of unlawful carnal knowledge, which suggests they found issues with the appellant's claim of consent on those counts. The inconsistency in the jury's verdicts led to the conclusion that the conviction on count 4 was unreasonable. The court substituted the conviction of rape on count 4 with a conviction of unlawful carnal knowledge and adjusted the sentence accordingly.

The court ordered that the appeal against the convictions on counts 1 and 3 be dismissed, while the appeal against the conviction on count 4 was allowed. The conviction of rape on count 4 was set aside, and the conviction of unlawful carnal knowledge was substituted. The sentence on count 4 was set at two years imprisonment, with credit for time already served. The records were amended to reflect these changes.