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, of which he was acquitted. Count 6 was a charge of rape when the victim was aged between 13 and 18, and count 7 during the same period when the charge was one of buggery.
Held: In the very particular circumstances of this case the court quashed the convictions. In an exceptional case a verdict may be quashed because, although there is no logical inconsistency between the verdicts returned, the particular facts and circumstances of the case render the verdict unsafe. The court however expressly rejected the submission that, where a complainant’s credibility is in issue and her evidence is uncorroborated, guilty verdicts must be regarded as unsafe because the jury also returned not guilty verdicts in relation to some of the complainant’s allegations.
Buxton LJ said: ‘A person’s credibility is not a seamless robe, any more than is their reliability. The jury had to consider, as they were rightly directed, each count separately and might take a different view of the reliability of the evidence on different counts.’
Rix J said: ‘If the jury were not sure that [she] was telling the truth about count 6, and particularly count 7 (the buggery count), how could the jury be sure that she was telling the truth about the earlier episodes? It was not as though there was any evidence to corroborate her in circumstances where the jury had to be directed . . Nevertheless in the particular circumstances of this case, which is both a case of an uncorroborated sexual complaint and also one in which the jury’s doubts about the complainant’s evidence has been established in particular by their failure to convict on the count of buggery, which did not require consent, and where all they had to be sure of therefore was the occurrence of the acts themselves, we think that these convictions are ones which no reasonable jury could have come to in the light of their verdicts of acquittal. . . in the light of these acquittals, and in the particular circumstances of this case, as we have emphasised, we regard the convictions as unsafe and we accordingly quash them.’
Judges:
Buxton LJ, Farquharson LJ, Rix J
Citations:
(1994) Crim LR 861, 93/1580/Y3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 B CACD 15-May-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.185679