R v Win

The appellant, Richard Duncan Win, was convicted of rape by a jury in the High Court at Wellington. He appealed against the conviction on two grounds: firstly, that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence; and secondly, that the trial Judge inadequately addressed the issue of prejudice arising from protests and publicity about other rape trials involving current and former police officers. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

The court considered whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The complainant and the appellant had a strained relationship during their time on a fishing vessel. After returning to shore, the complainant went to the appellant's room where she consumed two small drinks of vodka. She had no memory of events after that point and awoke to find herself naked in the appellant's bed. The complainant concluded she had been raped. The Crown argued that the appellant administered a drug to the complainant, which, combined with alcohol, rendered her unconscious and unable to consent. The appellant denied the allegations. The court found that there was ample evidence for the jury to convict, including the complainant's testimony, the presence of the drug in her system, and the appellant's prescription for the drug. The court held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The court also considered whether the trial Judge adequately addressed the issue of prejudice from protests and publicity about other rape trials. The Judge directed the jury to focus on the evidence in court and disregard any external influences. The court found that the Judge's direction was appropriate and adequately addressed the issue of prejudice. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice on this ground either.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the trial Judge adequately addressed any potential prejudice from protests and publicity.