Fernandes v AG 07-Jun-2021 [2020] JCA 164 (07 June 2021)

Fernandes v AG 07-Jun-2021 [2020] JCA 164 (07 June 2021)

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and was incapable of consenting due to intoxication, and that the appellant did not reasonably believe she was consenting. The jury was properly directed, and the differing verdicts on the two counts reflected the differing evidence available for each. No miscarriage of justice or error of law was found.

Citation
[2020] JCA 164
Parties
Appellant: Mark Fernandes; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Intoxication, Reasonable Belief in Consent, Jury Directions, Inconsistent Verdicts
Criminal Law Rape Consent Intoxication Reasonable Belief in Consent Jury Directions Inconsistent Verdicts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Fernandes

Appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict on the issue of consent
  2. 2 Whether the jury gave sufficient weight to the evidence as a whole, including defence witnesses
  3. 3 Whether the jury's verdicts on the two counts were logically inconsistent and unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and was incapable of consenting due to intoxication, and that the appellant did not reasonably believe she was consenting. The jury was properly directed, and the differing verdicts on the two counts reflected the differing evidence available for each. No miscarriage of justice or error of law was found.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed