R v SDQ

In the matter of R v SDQ, the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape, one count of choking, and one count of common assault. The appellant and the complainant were in a domestic partnership at the time of the alleged offences. The court was required to consider whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury regarding the evidence of the complainant's distressed condition following the alleged rapes and in instructing the jury to treat certain evidence with caution. The court also had to assess whether these alleged errors were significant enough to warrant a retrial.

The court determined that the trial judge did indeed err in his direction to the jury. The judge incorrectly stated that evidence of the complainant's distressed condition was corroborative of her allegations, which mischaracterised the nature of such evidence. Furthermore, the judge's instruction to the jury to treat certain evidence with caution was considered misleading as it did not adequately explain the basis for such caution. These errors were deemed to be significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the verdict of guilty was set aside. The court ordered a retrial to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial untainted by the judicial errors identified. The specific date for the retrial was not provided in the judgment.