RD (a pseudonym) v R

In the case of RD (a pseudonym) v R, the applicant appealed against his convictions for multiple sexual offences, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable. The Court of Appeal was tasked with assessing whether the complainant's evidence was specific enough to support the charges and whether it was of sufficient quality and consistency for acceptance by the jury. The case hinged on the specificity and consistency of the complainant's testimony regarding the sexual misconduct.

The court examined whether the complainant's evidence was sufficiently specific to the particular charges or if it merely comprised generalised assertions of misconduct. The complainant used the word "would" frequently in some parts of her evidence, while other parts detailed specific acts on particular occasions. The court concluded that for some counts, the complainant's evidence was not specific enough to support a conviction. Additionally, the court found that the evidence did not provide clear support for one of the counts, leading to the quashing of the conviction for that particular charge.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal and quashed the convictions on several counts, entering verdicts of acquittal on those counts. The reasoning was that the complainant's evidence lacked the necessary specificity and consistency to support the convictions. The court held that the Crown should not be permitted to attempt to obtain convictions at a further trial by improving its case, unless there were special circumstances. The court determined that, in the absence of such circumstances, the appropriate course was to enter verdicts of acquittal.