APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION BY IA

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted of rape following an incident at premises known as "The Loft" in The City. It was agreed that the Appellant penetrated the mouth of the complainer and ejaculated on her upper clothing and chest. The jury rejected the Appellant's special defence of consent and his claim that the complainer had offered oral sex in exchange for cocaine.

The complainer and two acquaintances had attended a rave where they consumed cocaine. They later sought to purchase cocaine from the Appellant. The complainer entered the toilet with the Appellant and another individual (MS). According to the complainer's police statement, the Appellant locked the door and an incident occurred without her consent, during which she tried to resist. Afterward, the Appellant gave her cocaine, which she took. The complainer denied offering oral sex for cocaine.

MS testified that both the Appellant and complainer asked her to leave the toilet, and she was outside for about ten minutes before re-entering and taking drugs with the others. MS expressed uncertainty about any sexual activity in exchange for drugs, based on vague and unclear recollections.

The Appellant testified that the complainer offered him oral sex in return for cocaine. He admitted to lying in his first police interview due to fear.

Evidence corroborating the complainer’s distress and injuries was presented by several witnesses.

The appeal concerned alleged misdirections in the trial judge’s charge to the jury, specifically regarding the interpretation of witness MS’s evidence and the presentation of evidence of bruising on the complainer.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by characterising MS’s evidence as speculative, thus undermining the Appellant’s defence of consent.
2. Whether the trial judge’s omission to mention evidence from witnesses who did not observe bruising on the complainer amounted to an unbalanced presentation and misdirection.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge’s charge improperly influenced the jury by suggesting MS’s evidence was speculative, thereby undermining the defence that the complainer consented by offering oral sex for cocaine.
• The omission of evidence from witnesses who did not see bruising on the complainer created an unbalanced presentation, which was critical given the role of bruising as corroboration for lack of consent.

Respondent's Arguments

• The timing of the judge’s direction in the charge did not give it undue weight, and the judge’s comments were a necessary correction of counsel’s mischaracterisation of MS’s evidence.
• The jury was properly directed to assess all evidence and to make their own judgments, including on the presence or absence of bruising, and there was no requirement to mention all negative evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the trial judge’s charge in context, noting that the judge sought to correct an impression given by counsel that MS’s evidence was unequivocal. The judge cautioned the jury that speculation should be avoided and that evidence must be carefully assessed, which is consistent with proper jury directions. The judge repeatedly emphasized that the jury alone was responsible for factual determinations and that their verdict must be based on evidence and reasonable inferences.

Regarding the omission of evidence from witnesses who did not observe bruising, the court held that the judge’s role was to direct where corroboration could be found, not to recount all negative evidence. The jury was reminded to consider all evidence and to rely on their own judgment. The judge also highlighted defence counsel’s submissions on the bruising, including the difficulty in accurately dating the injuries and their possible irrelevance to the alleged offence.

The court found no misdirection in either ground and rejected the submission that the charge unfairly influenced the jury.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is REFUSED.

The court’s decision affirms the trial judge’s directions as appropriate and balanced, maintaining the jury’s role as the sole arbiter of facts. This decision directly upholds the conviction without establishing new legal precedent or broader implications beyond the case.