The appellant was convicted by the Edinburgh High Court of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, and appealed his conviction, arguing that no reasonable jury would have found him guilty. He contended that the jury’s questions to the judge, suggesting a potential acquittal, showed they had already decided on his innocence before the verdict was delivered.

The trial focused on whether the complainer consented to the appellant’s actions, with it agreed that penetration occurred. After deliberations, the jury asked two hypothetical questions regarding how to express verdicts with mixed opinions, leading the judge to assume that only seven jurors favored guilt. The trial judge mistakenly directed the jury to acquit the appellant, but later acknowledged this error.

On appeal, the court ruled that while the jury was not properly directed, it was still reasonable to assume that, if directed correctly, they could have convicted the appellant, and the appeal was thus refused.