A former Army sergeant jailed for raping a woman he met outside a Civic pub has lost an appeal against his conviction.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Geoffrey William Joyce, 33, was in Canberra from interstate in March 2012, celebrating his 30th birthday with others in the city.
His phone went dead and he lost his friends, but he met a woman who invited him back to her hotel room to use her charger.
When they got back to the room, however, Joyce breached her trust.
He was found to have pushed her to the bed, forcibly undressed and raped her, while also slapping her in the face and choking her. Joyce continued the attack despite her pleas for him to stop.
She complained to a friend the next day, and was examined by a doctor that afternoon.
Joyce was later tracked down and charged.
The former Army sergeant had fought the six charges at trial, saying he left the hotel room when she made an unwelcome advances.
But a jury found him guilty of three offences and he was later sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment, to be served as two years' full-time prison, followed by 12 months' periodic detention.
Joyce appealed his conviction in the ACT Court of Appeal, claiming the findings were unsafe and unsatisfactory.
His appeal was based solely on what he claimed to be the inconsistent nature of the jury's findings.
The jury found him guilty of three of the charges - two of rape and one of assault - but cleared him on three others relating to oral sex.
Joyce argued the jury's mixed verdicts could only be explained by them being unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and instead making an "impermissible compromise".
But the ACT Court of Appeal - comprised of Chief Justice Helen Murrell and Justices Richard Refshauge and Iain Ross - dismissed the challenge on Friday, saying the jury was entitled to make such findings on the evidence before them.
"Given the medical and complaint evidence referred to, we have concluded that the jury simply followed the primary judge's instructions to assess the complainant's evidence and any other relevant evidence, such as medical evidence, in respect of each charge separately and that there was no need for all of the verdicts to be the same," the judges wrote.
"The differences between the evidence in relation to each count provide a rational explanation for the different verdicts."
