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, that they are so inconsistent as to demand interference by an appellate court i.e. that there is no way in which the logically inconsistent verdicts can be sensibly explained. For those proposition we rely on the authority of R v. Durante.’
(unreported, 30 July 1997)
England and Wales
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 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.563176