Sita v R

The applicant appealed against a conviction involving one count of child sexual assault against one of two victims. The trial had involved 10 counts, but the applicant was convicted on one count involving one victim. The evidence of the other victim was admitted under a Markuleski direction, which allowed the jury to consider it in relation to the counts involving the first victim, but not in relation to any count involving the second victim. The applicant argued that the trial judge's direction was defective because it precluded the jury from using any doubts about the evidence of one of the victims in the assessment of so much of their evidence that related to the count concerning the other victim. The trial judge's direction had the effect of precluding the jury from using any doubts about the evidence of one victim in the assessment of the evidence relating to the count concerning the other victim. The applicant argued that this was a miscarriage of justice and that the verdict was unreasonable. The court noted that the point had not been taken at trial, and there was no forensic advantage to the accused. However, the court found that the verdict was not unreasonable and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The evidence supporting the conviction was strong, and the commission of the offence was not improbable because of the risk of detection. The court ordered a retrial.

The court considered whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the evidence supporting the conviction meant that it was unreasonable. The court found that the evidence supporting the conviction was strong and that the commission of the offence was not improbable because of the risk of detection. The court noted that the applicant had not taken the point at trial and that there was no forensic advantage to the accused. However, the court found that the verdict was not unreasonable and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court ordered a retrial. The court considered whether the evidence supported the conviction and whether the commission of the offence was improbable because of the risk of detection. The court found that the evidence supporting the conviction was strong and that the commission of the offence was not improbable because of the risk of detection. The court noted that the applicant had not taken the point at trial and that there was no forensic advantage to the accused. However, the court found that the verdict was not unreasonable and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court ordered a retrial.