CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — whether verdicts are unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence — where applicant raised nine challenges to the reliability and credibility of the complainant — whether challenges provide basis for rejecting or doubting complainant’s evidence as to offences of which applicant was found guilty — whether cumulative impact of applicant’s contentions impugns complainant’s credibility as to offences of which applicant was found guilty — caution as to assumptions or preconceptions about how a victim of sexual assault might behave in given circumstances — where complainant’s evidence was supported by independent evidence in many respects — where complainant’s motives to lie or mislead others could be explained or quarantined such that incursions on credibility did not infect evidence as to offences of which applicant was found guilty — advantages of jury — whether it was open to jury to return a verdict of guilty to counts 3 and 4
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — where applicant charged on four counts — where counts 1 and 2 occurred close in time to counts 3 and 4 and involved alleged conduct of a similar nature — whether jury’s guilty verdicts with respect to counts 3 and 4 were inconsistent with not guilty verdicts with respect to counts 1 and 2 — where complainant provided inconsistent accounts in respect of count 2 — where counts 3 and 4 were substantiated by comprehensive complaint evidence — whether it was reasonably open to the jury not to accept complainant’s account in respect of counts 1 and 2, but accept her account in respect of counts 3 and 4
Quick Take
1Where a complainant's credibility is damaged by evidence of willingness to lie for a specific instrumental purpose (such as visa fraud), a jury may rationally quarantine that credibility damage and still accept the complainant's evidence beyond reasonable doubt on unrelated matters such as allegations of sexual assault, provided the motive to lie can be explained and does not logically extend to the subject matter of the charges.
2The presence of strong complaint evidence supporting some counts but not others on an indictment is a significant distinguishing feature capable of rationally explaining differing verdicts; acquittals on counts lacking complaint evidence are not necessarily attributable to rejection of the complainant's truthfulness as a whole and do not render guilty verdicts on supported counts inconsistent.
3Courts assessing unreasonable verdict claims must guard against assumptions or preconceptions about how a victim of sexual assault should behave after an assault; post-assault conduct such as apparently calm or casual interaction with the alleged offender does not necessarily create a reasonable doubt, particularly where the jury had the advantage of observing the complainant's demeanour and cultural context.
