R v SL CA245/03

The case before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was an appeal by the appellant, S L, against both his conviction and sentence for the rape of a 15-year-old girl, M, at an Auckland party in December 2001. The appellant, who was 21 at the time, admitted to having intercourse with M but maintained that she consented. The trial judge, Judge Gittos, sentenced the appellant to six and a half years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, consisting of O'Regan J, Goddard J, and Randerson J, was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the summing up was unbalanced, whether the Judge over-emphasised the medical evidence, and whether the sentence was excessive.

The Court found that the summing up was not unbalanced, despite the Judge spending more time on the Crown's case than the defence's. The key issue of consent was adequately and fairly presented to the jury, and the Judge correctly explained the elements of the offence and the onus and standard of proof. The Court also found that the Judge did not over-emphasise the medical evidence, as the marks found on M were evidence that the jury was entitled to consider alongside M's account. The Court rejected the suggestion that the redness found on M's neck could have been a love bite, as there was no evidence to support this claim. Finally, the Court found that the sentence was not excessive, as the Judge properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sentence was within the range available to him.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.