R v Rajakaruna

The case of R v Rajakaruna involved a defendant charged with multiple sexual offences against four street prostitutes over a one-month period. The defendant was charged with two counts of rape and two counts of procuring, or attempting to procure, sexual penetration by fraudulent means. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case hinged on the admissibility of “similar fact” evidence and the trial judge's directions to the jury, specifically in relation to the requirement for a unanimous verdict and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge properly exercised their discretion in admitting “similar fact” evidence under section 38(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.). Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the requirement for a unanimous verdict were obligatory and in line with section 46 of the Juries Act 2000. The court also assessed whether the jury's verdict on the fraudulent procurement offences was unsafe or unsatisfactory and whether it was supported by the evidence.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the “similar fact” evidence as it was relevant to proving the defendant's intent and knowledge in relation to the offences. The court found that the trial judge’s directions to the jury concerning the requirement for a unanimous verdict were not obligatory, as section 46 of the Juries Act 2000 did not mandate such a direction. Furthermore, the court concluded that the jury's verdict on the fraudulent procurement offences was safe, satisfactory, and adequately supported by the evidence presented.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence. The defendant's appeal was rejected on the basis that the trial judge's exercise of discretion in admitting “similar fact” evidence was proper, the direction to the jury was not obligatory, and the jury's verdict on the fraudulent procurement offences was secure and supported by the evidence.