R v Wilson

The appellant was convicted of the rape of a young girl and appealed against the conviction. The key issue for determination was whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at the trial. The offence was alleged to have occurred during a period when the child's mother went on a shopping trip, leaving the child in the care of the appellant. The exact date of the offence was unclear, with the Crown specifying it as being between 1 July 2009 and 6 February 2011. A key defence witness, who was said to have gone on the shopping trip with the child’s mother, provided unequivocal evidence that the child had not accompanied them on 20 January 2011, the date upon which the Crown alleged the offence occurred. This witness was not cross-examined on her evidence, and the Crown left open the exact date of the offence during its closing address.

The court examined whether the unchallenged evidence from the defence witness rendered the Crown's scenario impossible. The court noted the absence of cross-examination of this crucial witness, which left her testimony uncontroverted. Additionally, the court highlighted the discrepancies in the evidence of the preliminary complaint witnesses regarding the date of the alleged offence. Given these factors, the court concluded that the unchallenged evidence from the key defence witness, coupled with the discrepancies in the Crown's case, rendered the verdict unreasonable. The court held that it was impossible for the offence to have occurred on the date specified by the Crown, based on the unchallenged evidence.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The court set aside the guilty verdict and substituted it with a verdict of acquittal. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that any reasonable doubt is resolved in favour of the accused, particularly when key evidence is left uncontroverted and conflicts with the prosecution's case.