R v WAC

The case of R v WAC involved the appellant, WAC, who was convicted by a jury of one count of rape but acquitted on a second count. The complainant's evidence on the first count was partially corroborated by other witnesses, while there were significant weaknesses in her testimony regarding the second count. WAC appealed against the conviction on the grounds that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's direction regarding the corroboration of evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the guilty verdict on the first count was unreasonable, given the tangential corroboration of the complainant's evidence, and whether the verdicts on the two counts were inconsistent. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the trial judge should have provided a Markuleski direction despite it not being requested during the trial, particularly in light of the weaknesses in the complainant's evidence on the second count.

The court found that the jury's verdict on the first count of rape was not unreasonable, given the partial corroboration by other witnesses. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction on the corroborating evidence was not misdirection and did not overstate the significance of the tangential corroboration. The court also determined that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, as the trial judge's direction was not necessary, and the weaknesses in the complainant's evidence on the second count did not affect the reasonableness of the verdict on the first count. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.