R v Upton

In the case of R v Upton, the respondent was charged with sexual intercourse without consent and administering a stupefying drug with intent to commit an indictable offence. The case came before the court of criminal appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the decision of the trial judge to acquit the respondent on the count of administering the drug and the subsequent inconsistency of the jury's verdicts. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and misconceived, particularly regarding the effect of the stupefying drug and the credibility of the complainant.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and whether they correctly addressed the legal principles relevant to the charges. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the trial judge's directions adequately informed the jury about the circumstances in which the administration of a stupefying drug could amount to a separate offence and whether the judge properly guided the jury on the credibility of the complainant in a circumstantial case. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the inconsistency in the jury's verdicts was a ground for appeal and whether the trial judge's charge to the jury was sufficient.

The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were generally adequate, as they correctly informed the jury about the legal principles relevant to the charges. The court noted that while the directions could have been more explicit regarding the administration of the drug, they were not so misconceived as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court held that the inconsistency of the verdicts did not necessarily indicate a flaw in the trial process, as the jury's decision to acquit on the charge of administering the drug could be reconciled with their finding of guilt on the charge of sexual intercourse without consent. The court also concluded that the trial judge's charge to the jury was sufficient, as it correctly outlined the elements of the offences and the standard of proof required for a conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions for sexual intercourse without consent were upheld. The court found that the trial judge's directions and charge to the jury were adequate, and the inconsistency of the verdicts did not warrant interference. The court did not consider it necessary to order a retrial or direct a new trial.