The adequacy of judicial directions when replaying audio-visual evidence during jury deliberations must be assessed in the context of the trial as a whole. The risk of disproportionate weight is heightened where the accused has given evidence or where cross-examination places the content of the audio-visual evidence as requiring correction, but where neither feature is present and the trial judge reads relevant cross-examination evidence immediately before the replay and repeats preliminary complaint directions immediately after, no further warning about disproportionate weight is required. An effective head sentence of five years imprisonment for three counts of rape of a sleeping, vulnerable complainant (two involving penile penetration to ejaculation) is within the sound exercise of the sentencing discretion, even where the offender held an honest but unreasonable belief as to consent and had no relevant criminal history.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.