The appellant had been acquitted of rape, but convicted of indecent assault.
Held: ‘It did not follow that because the jury must have disbelieved a witness or rejected his or her evidence with the result that it acquitted on one count, it was necessarily acting irrationally to rely on the evidence of the same witness to convict an another count. The Court had to be very careful not to usurp the role of the jury who had heard the witnesses and considered the matter long and hard.’ There was not such an inconsistency as to conclude that the juries verdicts were unsustainable.
Judges:
Lord Justice Evans, Mr Justice Hidden, And The Recorder Of Leeds His Honour Judge Brian Walsh Qc
Citations:
[1997] Crim LR 604, [1997] EWCA Crim 523, [1997] CLR 604, 96/04148/Z4
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hunt CACD 1968
The appellant said the different verdicts against him were inconsistent.
Held: ‘The principle in every case is whether the inconsistency is such that it would not be safe to allow the verdict to stand. The fact that two verdicts are logically . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.149978
