||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 318 (Oct)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Rix LJ, Butterfield and Nelson JJ
||Michael Conry (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||Shenaz Muzaffer (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the crown.
||22 October 2007
Jury - Verdict - Inconsistent verdicts - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - Common assault - Whether verdicts logiscally inconsistent - Whether conviction unsafe.
The appeal would be allowed in the case of a defendant who was acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and convicted of common assault in relation to the same incident. The verdicts were prima facie inconsistent. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution had been sufficient to support a verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Moreover, there had been no sign of the jury being concerned about the victims' injuries and how they had been caused. They had been concerned with the lawfulness of the defendant's arrest. It followed that the verdicts were so inconsistent as to require interference by the Court of Appeal. There was no realistic possibility of a reasonable and logical explanation for the inconsistent verdicts. Accordingly, the conviction would be quashed.
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports