The case confirms that where a jury convicts on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and acquits on another arising from the same incident, the verdicts are not inconsistent where rational explanations exist, including differences in corroborating medical evidence, potential confusion about the role of a weapon in the absence of particulars, and the absence of evidence attributing specific bodily harm to the acts the subject of the acquitted count.
The full text is available to signed-in members.