Salmon v The Queen

The case of Salmon v The Queen involved the appellant who was convicted by a jury of an offence of sexual intercourse without consent. The Crown's case relied solely on the evidence of the complainant, a young girl, who alleged that the appellant had sexually assaulted her. The appellant appealed against the conviction on several grounds, including the alleged unreasonableness of the jury's verdict, the impact of prior inconsistent statements by the complainant, and other matters affecting her credibility. The appellant also argued that there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, warranting a Liberato direction to the jury.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented. This involved assessing the reliability and credibility of the complainant's evidence, especially in light of prior inconsistent statements she had made. Additionally, the court needed to decide if there were other factors that could have affected the jury's assessment of the evidence, and whether these factors were significant enough to warrant a Liberato direction. The Liberato direction, named after a previous case, requires the jury to consider the possibility that the accused may be innocent if there are substantial grounds to doubt the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The court found that the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence. The complainant's evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and other factors that significantly undermined her credibility. These factors included her prior inconsistent statements, the lack of corroboration, and the appellant's alibi. The court held that the weight of these factors created a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, and that a Liberato direction should have been given to the jury. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.