The court considered the practice on an appeal alleging that the jury had returned inconsistent verdicts.
Held: The court approved a statement from Professor Smith: ‘a better view would be that the conviction is not safe unless the court is satisfied that the verdict is not based on the confusion or wrong approach of the jury; and that, once the verdicts are shown to be inconsistent, the burden of persuasion is on the Crown, not the appellant.’
[2005] EWCA Crim 95
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not approved – Mote v Regina CACD 21-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.249337