R v W, GC

The case of R v W, GC involved the appellant appealing against his conviction for two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person between the ages of 12 and 17 years. The alleged offences were said to have occurred between 31 January 1986 and 28 February 1986 when the victim was 13 years old. The appellant admitted the sexual acts but argued that they occurred in 1989 when the victim was 16 years old. The defence under section 49(4) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 was considered, which provides a defence if the accused reasonably believed the victim was 17 years old or older. The trial judge directed the jury that they could convict if the offences occurred in either 1986 or 1989. The court was required to decide whether the trial judge erred in this direction, whether the date of the offence was a material fact that had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and if the judge correctly directed the jury regarding the victim's delay in complaint and the emphasis on inconsistencies in the victim's evidence.

The court found that the trial judge correctly directed the jury, as the date of the offence was not a material fact in this case. The court reasoned that the alleged inconsistencies were before the jury, and the verdicts were reasonably open to them. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the verdicts were not bad for duplicity and uncertainty as there was no danger that the parties were describing different incidents. The court also found that the trial judge correctly approached the matter of denying access to the medical notes of the psychiatrist treating the complainant, as there was no basis to conclude that professional confidence had been breached.

The court dismissed the appeal, and no further orders were made. The reasoning was that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury, the date of the offence was not a material fact, and the trial judge correctly denied access to the complainant's medical notes.