R v S (CA113/06)

The case of R v S (CA113/06) involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for rape by a jury in the District Court at Manukau. The appellant was found guilty of one count of rape and sentenced to eight years in prison. The appellant's appeal was based on the inconsistency of the guilty verdict for the first count and the acquittals on the remaining three counts of sexual violation, as well as the potential impact of fresh evidence that was not presented at the trial. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on 13 November 2006, with the judgment delivered on 17 November 2006.

The court had to decide whether the appellant's conviction was inconsistent with the acquittals on the other counts and whether the absence of the proposed fresh evidence led to a miscarriage of justice. The court considered the established legal principles that a conviction is unsafe if no reasonable jury could have arrived at the conclusion reached, and that a prima facie inconsistency is not enough to set aside a verdict. The court also considered the importance of the public interest in preserving the finality of jury verdicts and the potential for miscarriage of justice if significant evidence was not presented.

The court found that the jury could have reasonably reached different verdicts for the different counts based on the distinct circumstances surrounding each incident. The court also found that the proposed fresh evidence was not new, as it was available at the time and the appellant must have been aware of it. The evidence did not directly address the events in question and was inconsistent with both the complainant's and the appellant's accounts. The court concluded that the conviction was safe, and no miscarriage of justice arose. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.