even making full allowance for the manner in which (the accused and complainant) gave their evidence, the matters which cast doubt upon the prosecution case ... remain unanswered (per Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, and Toohey JJ) partial concurrence appeal on intercourse counts ought be allowed, while the sexual assault counts ought be retried (per Gaudron J) M v R or M v The Queen is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

[1] It is an important authority in the field of criminal law, for the circumstances in which it is permissible for a jury's guilty verdict to be overturned by a judge.

I would take that view because, broadly speaking, I have in purely subjective terms a feeling of anxiety and discomfort about the verdicts of guilty that were returned against the present appellant'[4]The other two justices, Cripps JA and Finlay J, agreed with Sully J in dismissing the appeal; but dissociated themselves from his expressed feeling of anxiety or discomfort.

[1] The majority discussed at length previous judicial commentary on when it was appropriate, as a matter of law, for criminal appellate courts to overturn a conviction on the unsafe or unsatisfactory ground.

[6] They found that the relevant question a court must ask itself, is whether; 'it thinks that upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty'.

[7] However, it also found that courts must have full regard to the jury's role as the primary body to be entrusted with a determination of guilt or innocence, and of the benefit jurors have in seeing and hearing from witnesses.

If the evidence, upon the record itself, contains discrepancies, displays inadequacies, is tainted or otherwise lacks probative force in such a way as to lead the court of criminal appeal to conclude that, even making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted, then the court is bound to act and to set aside a verdict based upon that evidence.

- per Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, and Gaudron JJThe majority made note of the anxiety and discomfort experienced by Sully J, saying it was indicative of a 'doubt (which) appears to have been engendered by shortcomings in the evidence, which are not met by reference to the jury's advantage in seeing the witnesses'.

[10] The majority decided that those accusations had 'revealed a capacity on the part of the complainant to make a complaint of a sexual nature to a person in authority about a member of her family'.

But even making full allowance for the manner in which both gave their evidence, the matters which cast doubt upon the prosecution case, to which we have referred, remain unanswered.