Mann v The Queen

Carl Brian Mann appeals his conviction of one count of sexual violation by digital penetration and one count of attempted sexual violation by rape. The appellant contends that the complainant was wrongly permitted to give evidence about the effect of antidepressant medication on her, that the complainant improperly attacked the credibility of another Crown witness, that a lies direction was given which was not justified, and that the verdicts were unsafe for three reasons, and unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal against conviction. The complainant’s evidence about the effect of medication on her was not supported by Dr Cape’s evidence, although neither did his evidence undermine it. The Crown was not obliged to give equal value to everything that every Crown witness of fact said in evidence. There is no rule prohibiting the Crown from inviting the jury not to accept evidence given by a witness it has called. The jury’s question strongly suggested that there was predetermination on the part of at least some jurors. However, by the time the jury posed the question, they had heard four days of evidence and the Crown and defence closings. The jury obviously wanted to understand what, if any, legal effect this had. Accordingly, they asked the Judge for guidance. Far from indicating pre-determination, this simply shows that the jury was going about its task in a careful and thoughtful way. Again, we see nothing in this point. A juror made a report to the Judge, who instigated an investigation. The investigation did not turn up anything. The trial continued with 11 jurors. There is nothing untoward in any of this. The essential question is whether the jury could reasonably have been satisfied that the appellant was guilty. The jury accepted the complainant’s evidence. In this case, there is no basis on which the Court could properly interfere with the jury’s assessment.