R v Wheatley

The appellant, Wheatley, appealed against his conviction on multiple counts, including supplying a dangerous drug, indecent treatment of a child under 16, and rape. The complainant, a 15-year-old child in the appellant's care, alleged that the offences occurred while she was heavily under the influence of cannabis. The prosecution did not pursue cognitive capacity as a basis for lack of consent, yet the trial judge failed to direct the jury on this matter. Additionally, the prosecutor made personal attacks on defence counsel and appealed to the jury to protect the weak and vulnerable, without the trial judge addressing these issues adequately. The appellant contended that the trial judge's directions on consent were inadequate and that the prosecutor's comments were improper. The central issues before the court were whether the trial judge's directions regarding consent were deficient, whether the prosecutor's comments were beyond proper bounds, and if the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The court found that the trial judge's failure to address the abandonment of cognitive capacity as a lack of consent ground constituted a significant misdirection. The trial judge also did not sufficiently address the prosecutor's personal attacks on defence counsel and the appeal to protect the weak and vulnerable, which further compounded the error. These errors amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, given the misdirections and the improper comments made by the prosecutor. Therefore, the appeal against convictions was allowed, the convictions on all counts were set aside, and a re-trial was ordered.

The court’s decision underscores the critical nature of proper jury directions and the necessity for prosecutors to maintain professional conduct during trials. The misdirections and improper comments significantly affected the fairness of the trial, leading to the appellant's convictions being quashed and a re-trial ordered.