Jury in sexual assault conviction jury would have benefited from guidance in relation to the ambiguity of evidence as to whether accused was asleep or awake

Court of Appeal – appeal against conviction of sexual assault – appeal of severity of sentence – ground of appeal is that the judge erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the prosecution case – no proven intentional assault of the complainant – trial judge refused to draw attention to the evidence in respect of whether the accused was awake or asleep - fundamental requirement not established – criticism of directions in respect of corroboration – refusal to grant a direction – application to recharge the jury – cross examination of complainant’s sister – requisitions - short trial – evidence not elaborate or complex – judge well positioned to decide how detailed her review of the evidence was needed – ground of appeal not upheld – judge did not give corroboration warning – did explain corroboration – charge in relation to the jury being overborne – alleged language used which referred to an obligation to return a verdict – not persuaded there is substance to this ground – jury told of entitlement to disagree – issue of whether accused was awake or asleep was significant – jury required assistance in this regard - conviction quashed.