SC v R

The appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual and indecent assaults against the complainant. The appellant sought to appeal against the conviction, contending that discrepancies, inconsistencies, and other inadequacies in the evidence significantly undermined the complainant’s credibility. The appellant argued that the jury ought to have entertained reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court considered whether the evidence was such that no reasonable jury could properly have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt. The court considered the credibility of the complainant, the reliability of the evidence, and whether the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence were significant enough to undermine the jury's confidence in the complainant's testimony. The court found that the evidence was indeed such that no reasonable jury could properly have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and verdicts of acquittal were entered in their place. The court held that the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence, along with other inadequacies, were significant enough to undermine the jury's confidence in the complainant's testimony. The court concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.