R v Rope

The appellant, Rope, was convicted in the trial court of three counts of rape and sought to appeal the decision. The jury in the trial had sought a copy of the complainant’s testimony during their deliberations, but the trial judge declined to provide it and did not offer to read out any part of it. The appellant also argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the effect of s 24 of the Criminal Code by failing to explain it in relation to the facts of the case. The trial judge instead explained the law by reference to what a reasonable person in the circumstances would have believed. The appellant argued that this misdirection was sufficient to set aside the convictions and order a retrial.

The court held that the trial judge’s refusal to provide the jury with a copy of the complainant’s testimony and his failure to inform them of their ability to request him to read out part of the transcript constituted a significant error. This error undermined the fairness of the trial and warranted the setting aside of the convictions. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge’s direction on s 24 of the Criminal Code was inadequate as it failed to relate the concept of honest and reasonable mistake of fact to the relevant evidence. This misdirection had a substantial and injurious effect on the trial and further warranted the setting aside of the convictions. The court held that the proviso in s 668E(1A) did not apply in this case as the misdirection was not trivial or formal.

The appeal against conviction was allowed, and the convictions were set aside. The court ordered a retrial to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial and that the jury was properly directed on the relevant law.