R v Sunderland

The appellant was found guilty of one count of rape by the jury, but acquitted of a charge of indecent assault against the same complainant. The complainant was 16 years old and a family friend of the appellant, who regularly cleaned the appellant's home. The appellant's hand rubbed the complainant's vagina while she was unable to protest due to feeling frozen, and he subsequently locked the door to prevent her leaving. When she attempted to leave, the appellant encouraged her to give him a massage, which he reciprocated before digitally raping her. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable when considering the evidence, and that the verdicts were inconsistent. He argued that there was no basis to differentiate between the verdicts, and that the jury should have acquitted him on both counts.

The court considered the appellant's arguments and examined the evidence presented to the jury. The court found that the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence that she did not consent to the appellant's touching, and that her freezing was a natural reaction to the situation. The court also found that the jury was entitled to accept that the complainant's lack of protest did not necessarily mean that she consented to the appellant's actions. The court held that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent, as the jury could have reasonably found that the appellant was guilty of rape but not guilty of indecent assault based on the evidence presented. The court found that the jury's verdict on count 2 was not unreasonable or insupportable when considering the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction on count 2 of rape was upheld. The court held that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent and that the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence. The court found that the appellant's submission that the jury should have acquitted him on both counts was not supported by the evidence. The court held that the conviction on count 2 was not unreasonable or insupportable when considering the evidence, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court made an order dismissing the appeal on 20 February 2020.