25 Nov 2016
The evidence that the complainant had consensual sex with a friend shortly after the alleged rape or months earlier in the car was not directly relevant to the issue of consent or the appellant's reasonable belief in consent and therefore would not have met the heightened relevance threshold in s 44(3); leave would not have been granted and no miscarriage of justice occurred, so the appeal is dismissed.
19 Dec 2013
The Supreme Court held the Judge correctly excluded the proposed prior‑occasion evidence under the evidentiary scheme (s44 Evidence Act 2006); even if that evidence had been admissible it lacked sufficient probative value and its exclusion did not occasion a miscarriage of justice; the jury's acquittal on the oral‑connection count and conviction for rape were not necessarily inconsistent because a reasonable jury could accept lack of consent to intercourse while having reasonable doubt about consent to the oral act; the appeal was dismissed.
29 Jun 2006
There was no breach of s 23A because the prosecutor's remarks simply reflected the competing accounts of the Crown and defence regarding the circumstances of the alleged rape and did not insinuate inadmissible evidence; therefore the application for leave to appeal could not succeed.