Muhib, Regina v: CACD 13 Jan 1998

The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter saying that the jury had returned inconsistent verdicts,
Held: ‘there is no possible logical inconsistency in the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter in relation to one victim of the applicant’s knife, and a verdict of wounding with intent in relation to another such victim. That being so, it is in our judgment quite unarguable that the verdict on count 3 in this indictment should be regarded as unsafe, on the ground of inconsistency. It follows that the application for leave to appeal against conviction fails.’

Rose VP CACD LJ, Latham J, Sir Patrick Russell
[1998] EWCA Crim 34
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Durante CACD 1972
Logical inconsistency is generally an essential prerequisite for success of an appeal against conviction on the ground of inconsistency of verdicts. . .
CitedRegina v McCluskey CACD 4-Jun-1993
The consent of the Court of Appeal was needed to sanction any jury enquiry. . .
CitedRegina v McKechnie 1992
When a judge intends to provide an explanatory note for a jury, he should provide a copy to counsel in advance with sufficient opportunity for them to consider and comment on it. . .
CitedRegina v Clarke and Fletcher CACD 30-Jul-1997
Hutchison LJ said: ‘The way in which this Court should approach an appeal against conviction, based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts is well settled. To succeed the appellant must show first the verdicts are logically inconsistent, and secondly, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563174