R v R

The appeal in this case involved the respondent, the Crown, and the appellant, who had been convicted of sexual offences against a child. The appellant argued that there were errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury, specifically regarding admissions and consent obtained through intimidation, as well as the approach to the complainant's distressed condition. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in his directions concerning the appellant's admissions and consent obtained through intimidation, and whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the proper approach to be taken in respect of the complainant's distressed condition. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the jury could return a verdict of guilty on both charges of rape and unlawful carnal knowledge.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in his directions concerning the appellant's admissions and consent obtained through intimidation. However, the court held that the trial judge did err in failing to direct the jury as to the proper approach to be taken in respect of the complainant's distressed condition. The court found that the error was not merely trivial or insignificant but rather a substantial error that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court also found that the jury could not return a verdict of guilty on both charges of rape and unlawful carnal knowledge as they were alternative verdicts.

The court dismissed the appeal in respect of the rape conviction, but allowed the appeal in respect of the conviction for unlawful carnal knowledge. The conviction was quashed, and a verdict and judgment of acquittal were entered. The court found that the substantial error in the trial judge's directions was not capable of being cured by a direction to acquit on the charge of unlawful carnal knowledge, and therefore the conviction for that charge was quashed.