R v R (CA349/05)

The case before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, R v R (CA349/05), involved an appellant appealing against his conviction on two counts of indecent assault while being acquitted on two counts of sexual violation. The Court, consisting of Chambers, Ronald Young, and Allan JJ, dismissed the appeal against the conviction. The appellant's primary contention was that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, given that he was convicted of indecent assault but acquitted of more severe charges of sexual violation. Additionally, the appellant argued that the Papadopoulos direction, which encouraged the jury to reach a verdict, was inappropriate and led to unsafe verdicts.

The Court examined the arguments surrounding inconsistent verdicts and concluded that the jury's decision to convict on some counts but not others could be reasonably explained. Factors such as the detailed nature of the complainant's evidence regarding the indecent assaults, the limited detail provided for the sexual violation charges, and the jury's focus on the more frequently occurring indecent assaults all contributed to the jury's decision. The Court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the verdicts were inconsistent to the point of being unreasonable.

Regarding the Papadopoulos direction, the Court found that the direction was appropriately given, as the appellant had consented to it, and it did not place undue pressure on the jury. The Court observed that all jury verdicts involve some degree of compromise, and the length of the jury's retirement and the fact that this was a retrial did not render the verdicts unsafe. The Court was satisfied that the Papadopoulos direction was properly administered and did not lead to an unfair outcome.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that neither of the grounds presented by the appellant was valid. The appellant's conviction on the counts of indecent assault stood.