R v Walton and Harman

The case of R v Walton and Harman involves two appellants who were charged with multiple sexual offences against a complainant. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining the validity of the convictions and various legal issues surrounding the trial process. The complainant had fallen asleep and subsequently awoke to find one appellant having sexual intercourse with her and the other appellant licking her breasts. The complainant had significant memory gaps surrounding the incident, which led to questions about the extent of her consent and the roles of each appellant.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including whether the judge erred in directing the jury on the application of section 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code concerning joint enterprise and whether the judge correctly handled the potential bias of two jurors. Additionally, the court examined the admissibility of evidence regarding the appellant's employment as a law clerk post-charge and pre-trial, as well as the sufficiency of the judge's direction on the complainant's intoxication and its effect on her memory. The court also considered whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court found that the judge erred in several aspects of the trial. The directions given to the jury regarding the joint enterprise were deemed inadequate. Furthermore, the judge should have discharged two jurors who had potential conflicts of interest due to their associations with the complainant's mother and the investigating officer's wife. The court also held that the direction concerning the complainant's intoxication and its impact on her memory was insufficient. These errors led to the conclusion that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, resulting in the setting aside of the convictions for indecent assault and rape. The court ordered a re-trial for one of the appellants and an acquittal for the other, while dismissing the appeal against the indecent assault conviction for one appellant.

The final orders included allowing the appeal against the convictions of both appellants for indecent assault and rape, setting aside the verdicts, and entering a verdict of acquittal for one appellant. The court also ordered a re-trial for the other appellant regarding the rape conviction. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.