Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
GL, R. v
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
In October 2019, following a trial at Belfast Crown Court before Her Honour Judge Smyth, the Appellant was convicted on multiple counts relating to sexual offences against a child under 13 years old under the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. The complainant was the child of the Appellant's partner and alleged abuse beginning at age 10 and continuing until age 13, when the abuse was disclosed to her mother. The Appellant was acquitted on several counts but convicted on others, including offences involving sexual assault, digital penetration, and rape. The Appellant appealed on the ground that the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the guilty verdicts are inconsistent with the acquittals such that no reasonable jury could have returned such verdicts.
- The applicable legal test for determining inconsistency in jury verdicts in cases involving multiple counts of sexual offences.
- Whether the burden of proof lies on the Appellant to demonstrate that the verdicts cannot stand together.
- The permissibility of the jury being sure of the complainant’s credibility on some counts but not others.
- The appropriateness of the judge’s direction to the jury to consider each count separately and give separate verdicts.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant contended that the guilty verdicts, particularly on counts involving grinding and digital penetration, were inconsistent with acquittals on related counts, such as the specific count of grinding on a sofa and certain counts of digital penetration.
- The Appellant argued that such inconsistencies indicated that the jury was unreasonable and that all convictions should be quashed.
- He also maintained alternative explanations for some incidents, including that the complainant initiated some contact, which was not encouraged by him.
Prosecution's Arguments
- The Prosecution maintained that the jury had properly considered the evidence separately on each count as directed by the trial judge.
- They argued that the verdicts were not inconsistent given the differing circumstances and evidence relating to each count.
- The Prosecution relied on established legal principles that a jury can accept the complainant’s evidence on some counts and reject it on others without inconsistency.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Fanning [2016] 1 WLR 4175 |
Test for inconsistency of jury verdicts; burden on appellant to show verdicts cannot stand together. |
Adopted as the leading authority; court applied its legal framework to assess the alleged inconsistencies. |
| R v Stone (unreported, 13 December 1954) |
Burden on appellant to prove that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdicts. |
Endorsed as the appropriate test for inconsistency claims. |
| R v Durante [1972] 1 WLR 1612 |
Approval of the burden on the appellant to prove inconsistency. |
Confirmed the approach in this jurisdiction. |
| R v H [2016] NICA 21 |
Adoption of the Fanning approach in Northern Ireland jurisdiction. |
Supported the court’s application of the Fanning principles. |
| R v S [2014] EWCA Crim 95 |
Consideration of inconsistency in multiple counts involving the same complainant. |
Rejected as a basis for applying a different test in this case. |
| R v W (Martyn) (unreported, 30 March 1999) |
Jury directions on separate consideration of counts and verdicts. |
Adopted to affirm that juries may return differing verdicts on related counts without inconsistency. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reaffirming the legal test for inconsistency from R v Fanning and related authorities, emphasizing that the burden rests on the appellant to show that no reasonable jury could have returned the verdicts together. The court rejected any special test for multiple counts arising from a single sexual encounter or over extended periods.
It was noted that the jury was properly directed to consider each count separately and to return separate verdicts. The court emphasized that it is permissible for a jury to accept the complainant’s evidence on some counts and reject it on others.
The court examined the factual circumstances of the acquitted and convicted counts. It found that the acquittals related to specific incidents where evidence was either conflicting or insufficiently particular, such as the grinding on the sofa and digital penetration when the mother entered the room. The convictions related mainly to allegations of repeated conduct in the appellant’s bed on Saturday mornings, which the jury found proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The court also considered the complainant's detailed evidence, the conflicting medical testimony, and the trial judge’s direction regarding inconsistencies in the complainant’s account. The jury’s decision to accept some allegations and reject others was found to be rational and based on the evidence.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the verdicts were not irreconcilably inconsistent and that the jury’s approach was reasonable and careful rather than irrational.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the appeals against counts 2 and 5 and refused leave to appeal on counts 3, 10, and 13.
The direct effect is that the convictions on the specified counts stand and the appeal fails. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reinforces the established principles regarding inconsistency of jury verdicts and the proper approach to multiple counts in sexual offence cases.
Click here to read the full judgment