12 Oct 2021
The Court upheld the rape conviction because there was objective forensic corroboration (DNA and semen stains) and other evidence distinguishing the intercourse allegation from the acquitted sexual connection charges; on that evidential basis the jury could reasonably reject the appellant's account and find lack of consent, so the guilty verdict was not inconsistent or unreasonable.
1 Oct 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence was not identical across incidents—the clearer CCTV from the Warehouse and subsequent conduct at PAK'nSAVE supported an inference of knowledge for the convictions, so the differing verdicts were logically supportable and not inconsistent.
12 Jun 2019
Extension of time to apply for leave was granted but leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly treated the added counts as included charges lawful under s 143, any procedural irregularity (including the unnecessary plea invitation) was curable under s 379, taking verdicts on included charges did not produce a miscarriage, and the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances or public importance to justify raising new factual grounds in the Supreme Court.
15 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the factual differences between the trials (different evidence presented and evidence omitted at retrial) provided a logical explanation for divergent verdicts, so the statutory criteria for leave (general/public importance or real risk of miscarriage of justice) were not met.
25 Mar 2015
Because trial counsel introduced, in closing, a new defence theory inconsistent with the case and without evidential foundation, the Court accepted this error was capable of causing a miscarriage of justice; the conviction for unlawful sexual connection was quashed and a new trial ordered, with a publication prohibition imposed for fair trial reasons.
11 Mar 2013
Leave to appeal denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice or new substantive grounds; her submissions added nothing material to the record and the issues were factual matters for the jury and the Court of Appeal.
20 May 2008
Leave to appeal dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded there was a rational explanation for the differing verdicts: guilty verdicts were supported by corroborating evidence while acquittals reflected lack of corroboration; no question of principle or miscarriage of justice arose.