To begin with, the headline: "Queensland jury reject's rapist's appeal." No, the jury did not reject the rapist's appeal. That's what the Queensland Court of Appeal is for.
Then, the second paragraph, which begins: "A Queensland jury today found him guilty of two counts of rape and one count of indecent dealing...". No, the jury did nothing today. They did their work months ago when they convicted him. It was the Court of Appeal that did their work today, and they did not find him guilty of anything, they simply upheld the jury's original verdict.
Then in the fourth paragraph the article says: "He submitted that the primary judge should have warned the jury to scrutinise the complainant's evidence with great care." In the next paragraph, the article then exclaims: "But this as not upheld by Queensland's Court of Appeal judges". What did the Court of Appeal say? According to the article, they said that the trial judge had warned the jury "to no convict upon the complainant's testimony alone unless scrutinising it with great care."
Hang on...isn't that what the article says was the submission made by the appellant, but then says was not upheld by the Court of Appeal?
The fourth paragraph should read that the trial judge "had not" warned the jury, not that the trial judge "should have" warned the jury. Only then does the last paragraph make sense.
Please, can we have some people who can (a) write, and (b) know something about court procedure?