SM v R

In this case, the appellant, SM, was convicted of several offences of sexual assault against a complainant. The conviction was challenged on appeal on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable, with the appellant arguing that the jury's failure to reach a verdict on certain counts, along with evidentiary inconsistencies, undermined the reliability of the complainant's evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the failure of the jury to reach a verdict on certain counts of the indictment, as well as evidentiary inconsistencies, rendered the guilty verdicts unreasonable. The appellant argued that these factors significantly impacted the reliability of the complainant's evidence, thereby affecting the overall reasonableness of the jury's decision. The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict, in light of these issues, was open to the possibility that it was unreasonable.

The court examined the principles governing the unreasonableness of jury verdicts and found that the jury's failure to reach a verdict on certain counts did not necessarily indicate unreasonableness, as it was within the jury's power to decide which counts they could confidently find proven. The court also considered the effect of evidentiary inconsistencies on the reliability of the complainant's evidence, but concluded that these inconsistencies did not undermine the overall reliability of her evidence to the extent that it affected the reasonableness of the verdicts. The court found that the jury's guilty verdicts were open to them, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal against the appellant's conviction, upholding the jury's verdicts as reasonable.