- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
H, R v
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was convicted on 7 October 2015 of two counts of indecent assault on a male between April 2006 and September 2007, following a trial before Her Honour Judge McReynolds and a jury. The original indictment contained 25 counts of sexual offences involving four young persons. The Appellant faced 13 counts against Complainant A, resulting in seven not guilty verdicts and six jury disagreements; 10 counts against Complainant B, with convictions on two counts (14 and 17), four not guilty verdicts, and four jury disagreements; one count against Complainant C resulting in a not guilty verdict; and one count against Complainant D which was removed before trial. The appeal concerns alleged inconsistent verdicts related to counts 14 and 17.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the convictions on counts 14 and 17 constitute inconsistent verdicts in light of other jury findings and disagreements.
- Whether the verdicts are safe under the statutory test, considering the alleged inconsistencies.
- The appropriate legal approach to appeals based on inconsistent verdicts, including the application of precedent and burden of proof.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v McDonald [2016] NICA | Summarised the test for inconsistent verdicts: safety of verdict, logical inconsistency as necessary but not sufficient, explanation for inconsistency, burden on appellant, case-specific approach. | Adopted as the starting framework for assessing inconsistent verdicts in this appeal. |
| R v A [2014] NICA 2 | Earlier adoption of the approach to inconsistent verdicts aligned with R v Dhillon. | Referenced as part of the lineage of legal principles applied. |
| R v Dhillon [2010] EWCA 1577 | Detailed approach to inconsistent verdicts involving explanation for inconsistency and burden of proof. | Initially followed but later qualified and revised by R v Fanning. |
| R v Fanning [2016] EWCA Crim 550 | Revised the approach to inconsistent verdicts, returning to the original test by Devlin J in R v Stone, emphasizing jury's constitutional role and burden on defendant. | Court adopted this revised approach as authoritative for the jurisdiction. |
| R v Stone [1955] Crim LR 120 | Original test for inconsistent verdicts: convictions cannot stand if no reasonable jury could have arrived at the verdicts; burden on defence to establish this. | Formally adopted as the correct test by the court in this case. |
| R v Durante [1972] 56 Cr App R 708 | Formal adoption of Devlin J's test in R v Stone by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales. | Supported the court's decision to apply this test. |
| G (Steven) [1998] Crim LR 483 | Credibility and reliability of witnesses can vary by count; jury may be sure of one allegation but not another. | Supported the court's acceptance that different verdicts on related counts are permissible. |
| R v Pollock [2004] NICA 34 | Sets out the Court of Appeal's approach to assessing safety of verdicts on appeal. | Guided the court's evaluation of whether the convictions were safe. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the jury's verdicts in light of the legal principles governing inconsistent verdicts. It noted that the trial judge properly directed the jury to consider each count separately, with no obligation to return consistent verdicts across related counts. The court emphasized that the jury may reasonably reach different conclusions on the reliability and credibility of evidence for each count, even when counts arise from the same incident or complainant.
The court applied the test from Devlin J in R v Stone, requiring the appellant to prove that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdicts given. The jury's discernment was evident in their varied verdicts across complainants and counts, including acquittals, convictions, and disagreements. The court found logical distinctions in the jury's treatment of lesser and more serious allegations, particularly regarding counts involving Complainant B in different settings (a static caravan and a motor car).
Further, the court considered the burden on the appellant to establish that the verdicts were unsafe and found no basis to conclude that the jury was confused or applied the law incorrectly. The court referenced the approach in R v Pollock to assess the safety of the convictions, concluding that there was no significant sense of unease about the verdicts.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the appeal, holding that the convictions on counts 14 and 17 are not inconsistent and are safe. The verdicts were found to be logical, reasonable, and supported by the evidence as evaluated by the jury. The decision affirms that differing verdicts on related counts are permissible when the jury properly applies its mind to the facts. No new legal precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing principles regarding inconsistent verdicts and the burden of proof on appellants in such appeals.
Alert