R v Smith

The appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of rape. The central issue was the credibility of the complainant's testimony regarding consent, given that the appellant admitted to the act of sexual intercourse. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's decisions were correct in several respects, including the refusal to grant a permanent stay due to delay, the refusal to allow cross-examination regarding the complainant's sexual history, the reasonableness of the jury's verdict, and the handling of the jury's deliberations. The appellant argued that the lengthy delay in bringing the charges had prejudiced his ability to defend himself, the exclusion of evidence regarding the complainant's sexual history was erroneous, the jury's verdict was unreasonable, and the trial judge's handling of the jury's deliberations was flawed.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a permanent stay due to the delay, as the appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had caused him insurmountable difficulties in defending himself. The court also held that the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in not allowing cross-examination on the complainant's sexual history, as the evidence was not of substantial relevance to the issue of consent. Furthermore, the Court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, given the evidence presented. The Court also determined that the trial judge did not err in his handling of the jury's deliberations, as there was no procedural unfairness in not disclosing the voting numbers to the appellant's counsel.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The reasoning and decisions of the trial judge were affirmed, and the conviction stood as delivered by the jury. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion or the jury's verdict. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction remained in place.