R v Wells

The appellant, R, appealed against his conviction of one count of rape, contending that the verdict was unreasonable and that there was a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the inconsistencies in the complainant's and other witnesses' accounts of events immediately following the offence, the time and manner in which the complainant returned home, and the disclosure of the offence to others. Despite these discrepancies, the complainant's account of the events constituting the rape was consistent and clear. The appellant contended that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.

The court had to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The court also had to consider whether there were particular circumstances amounting to a miscarriage of justice, specifically whether there was a non-direction by the trial judge regarding the lies told by the appellant. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to give the jury any direction on how to use lies as an indicator of guilt, despite the prosecutor asserting in his closing address that the inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence indicated that he had lied. The appellant submitted that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on this point amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to direct the jury regarding the presence of support persons as required by section 21AW(2) of the Evidence Act when the complainant and a child witness gave pre-recorded evidence. The appellant contended that this omission amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the inconsistencies in the evidence did not necessarily undermine the complainant's account of the events constituting the rape, and that the jury was entitled to find the appellant guilty based on the whole of the evidence. However, the court found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the use of lies as an indicator of guilt amounted to a non-direction that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the presence of support persons amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be re-tried on the count of rape.