R v Waghorn

The appellant, R Waghorn, appealed his conviction for indecent assault to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal was brought on the grounds that the guilty verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, the appellant argued that the guilty verdict was unreasonable due to its inconsistency with the jury's acquittal on two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, and that the complainant's evidence was so unreliable that the jury should not have relied upon it.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the guilty verdict on the indecent assault charge was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, particularly in light of the acquittals on other charges. The court was required to determine if the complainant's evidence was sufficiently reliable for a jury to convict on the indecent assault charge, and whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory when considering the totality of the evidence.

The court reasoned that the allegation of indecent assault was factually distinguishable from the allegations of unlawful sexual intercourse. It held that it was open to the jury, as a matter of logic and common sense, to accept the complainant's evidence regarding the indecent assault while acquitting the appellant on the other charges. The jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on the indecent assault charge, even if they were not so satisfied regarding the unlawful sexual intercourse charges. The court found the complainant's account of the indecent assault to be plausible, consistent, and clear, and that this evidence, when considered with evidence of an apology from the appellant, supported the jury's verdict. Consequently, the verdict was deemed neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence, and therefore neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory.

The appeal was dismissed.