The Court upheld a conviction in respect of an Appellant who had been convicted of three offences on a six-count indictment. He was acquitted of the other three. In respect of each of the six counts the Prosecution relied upon the uncorroborated evidence of the 16-year-old complainant. M, the wife of the Appellant gave evidence on his behalf in respect of the three counts on which the jury acquitted.
Held: For an appeal on the grounds of inconsistent verdicts to succeed it must be shown that the verdicts are logically incompatible. The different verdicts here were not inconsistent: ‘there is no logical inconsistency in the verdicts returned by the jury, and unless there is a logical inconsistency, the question of whether or not the jury’s verdicts can sensibly be explained does not generally arise. There have recently been a number of appeals to this Court based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts, and it is perhaps therefore worth emphasising that it is axiomatic that, generally speaking, logical inconsistency is an essential prerequisite for success on this ground.’
The court considered the correct approach on a suggestion of inconsistent jury verdicts: ‘As it seems to us there is no logical inconsistency in the verdicts returned by the jury and unless there is a logical inconsistency the question of whether or not the jury’s verdict can sensibly be explained does not generally arise.
There have recently been a number of appeals to this Court based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts and it is perhaps worth emphasising that it is axiomatic that generally speaking logical inconsistency is an essential pre-requisite for success in this Court (see Durante [whose reference we have given] R v. Warner (unreported Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) 17th February 1997.’
Judges:
Rose LJ
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Crim 1200, 9700085Z4
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Cilgram CACD 1994
There were seven charges. Counts 1 to 5, on which the appellant was convicted, were of sexual offences which took place when the victim was aged between 5 and 12 years. Count 5 was a charge of rape. There were two counts, 6 and 7 in the indictment, . .
Cited – Regina v Warner CACD 17-Feb-1997
The defendant appealed convictions for indecent assault, saying that convictions on some counts and acquittals on others were so inconsistent as to call the convictions into question, showing acceptance of the complainant’s evidence on some counts . .
Cited – Regina v Makanjuola CACD 17-May-1995
Guidance was given on the directions to be given to the jury where a co-accused speaks for prosecution as a witness and in sexual assault cases. The full corroboration warning is not now needed; the Judge may use his own discretion, and may give a . .
Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Rafferty (WA); Regina v Rafferty (WK) CACD 5-Apr-2004
The defendants appealed, saying the jury verdicts were not consistent.
Held: Counsel presenting such an appeal should ensure that the transcripts of the cases now cited were put before the court. To have a verdict set aside for inconsistency . .
Cited – Regina v Rooney CA 12-Jul-2006
The appellant appealed her conviction under the 1998 Act. As a police support worker, she had used the Force’s computer to access information about former boyfriend. She replied that the access was simply for the purpose of ensuring the records were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Criminal Practice
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.150655