R v VM

The appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care, four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The complainant was 13 and the appellant was 43 at the time of the offending. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the jury's acquittal on some counts rendered the guilty verdicts inconsistent and whether the trial judge’s failure to give a Robinson direction, as well as other procedural issues, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's acquittal on some counts rendered the guilty verdicts inconsistent and whether the trial judge’s failure to give a Robinson direction, along with other irregularities such as the jury having s 93A evidence in the jury room, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court had to apply the test for determining inconsistency in verdicts as well as the tests for miscarriage of justice under criminal law.

The court held that the jury's acquittal on some counts did not render the guilty verdicts inconsistent. The court found that the evidence supported the guilty verdicts on the counts where the appellant was convicted, and the jury was entitled to accept the appellant's account in relation to the acquitted counts. Regarding the trial judge’s failure to give a Robinson direction, the court concluded that this did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The court further found that the jury having s 93A evidence in the jury room did not amount to a miscarriage of justice in the particular circumstances of the case.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the case and upheld the appellant's convictions and sentence.