Saunders v R

In the matter of Saunders v R, the appellant, Saunders, appealed against his convictions for multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal. Saunders contested the admissibility of certain evidence, the correctness of jury directions, and the consistency of the jury's verdicts. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in admitting tendency evidence concerning the appellant's conduct when he was intoxicated, and whether this led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the verdicts were internally consistent, given that Saunders was found guilty on one count of sexual intercourse without consent but acquitted on the other two similar counts.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's tendency to behave in a certain way when intoxicated. The court examined whether this evidence was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the trial judge's directions to the jury about the tendency evidence were appropriate and whether they might have misled the jury. In relation to the verdicts, the court examined the consistency of the jury's findings and whether it was open to the jury to convict Saunders of one count of sexual intercourse without consent while acquitting him on the other similar counts. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the tendency evidence, as it was relevant and did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. The court also found that the jury's verdicts, though seemingly inconsistent, were open to them based on the evidence presented.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction on one count of sexual intercourse without consent but quashed the convictions on the other two counts. The court determined that the verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent, as the jury could have reasonably reached different conclusions based on the varying circumstances of each count. The court also noted that the appellant's delay in appealing was partially justified due to his efforts to obtain the primary judge's reasons, which were initially unavailable. The appeal was allowed in part, and the convictions on two counts of sexual intercourse without consent were quashed, while the conviction on one count was upheld. The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.