R v V N

A plea of autrefois acquit cannot be sustained where the count on which the acquittal was entered was bad for latent duplicity, because no specific offence was identified as the subject of the verdict and the accused was not placed in jeopardy of conviction. Evidence led in support of counts on which directed acquittals were entered may continue to be used as relationship/uncharged acts evidence on remaining counts where the acquittals were entered because the evidence did not relate to the charged acts (e.g., fell outside the time period or involved a different act). An Edwards direction is not required merely because the accused gives evidence contradicting a prosecution witness; there must be some circumstance giving rise to a risk that the jury will treat the denial as an implied admission of guilt. No direction on consent or mens rea is required for indecent assault where the only evidence is of non-consent, the defence is a bare denial, and there is no evidentiary basis leaving those issues open. Where an offence of indecent assault occurs during the same conduct as incest, the presumption of concurrency should prevail and full cumulation is inappropriate.