21 Aug 2018
P (CA543/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 314
- Citation
- [2018] NZCA 314
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Verdicts were not inconsistent because the jury could reasonably have found differences in timing and in whether the complainant was under 16 or whether consent (or reasonable belief in consent) existed for particular acts; prolonged deliberations did not occasion a miscarriage of justice absent evidence of juror exhaustion or distress and the trial judge properly exercised discretion; R v AM applies to offences sentenced after its delivery even if the offending occurred earlier; the eight year starting point and resulting four year sentence were not manifestly excessive.