R v R T M

The applicant, represented by counsel, sought leave to appeal against his conviction on five counts of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 years of age. The application was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the applicant was represented by counsel and the Crown by a prosecutor. The applicant had been acquitted by the jury on one count of incest and one count of attempted incest, which were alleged to have occurred during the same series of events as the counts of indecent acts. The applicant argued that the jury's verdicts were factually inconsistent and sought leave to appeal on this basis.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were factually inconsistent and, if so, whether this was a ground for allowing an appeal against conviction. The court considered the evidence presented at trial and the jury's verdicts, noting that the jury had been properly directed on the elements of the offences and the burden and standard of proof. The court found that the jury's verdicts were not factually inconsistent, as the evidence did not establish the elements of incest or attempted incest beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal, finding that the applicant had not made out a case for allowing an appeal against conviction. The court held that the jury's verdicts were open to them on the evidence and that there was no basis for interfering with the jury's decision. The court noted that the applicant had been acquitted on two of the six charges, which demonstrated that the jury had carefully considered the evidence and distinguished between the different offences. The court also noted that the applicant's arguments were based on an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their evidence, which was a matter for the jury.