Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2015] All ER (D) 124 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2015] EWCA Crim 632
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Sir Brian Leveson P, Mr Justice Cranston and Mr Justice Singh

Representation William Clegg QC for the defendant.
  Thomas Wilkins for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 17 April 2015

Catchwords

Jury - Verdict - Inconsistent verdicts - Defendant being convicted of two counts of sexual assault - Jury failing to reach agreement in relation to five counts of assault by penetration and three counts of sexual assault - Defendant appealing against conviction - Whether verdicts being inconsistent.

The Case

Jury Verdict. The defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault. The jury failed to reach agreement in relation to five counts of assault by penetration and three counts of sexual assault. The defendant appealed against conviction on the sole ground that the convictions recorded on two counts in relation to a complainant, C, were inconsistent with the jury's failure to agree in relation to the remaining eight counts and, in particular, the other four concerning C. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the jury had been entitled to consider the evidence of C, the expert evidence, the contrast with what the character witnesses said happened to them, the defendant's interviews and the circumstances, and reach their conclusions based upon all of it. It was not sufficient simply to look at the evidence of C to justify the allegation of inconsistency.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.