A conviction for administering a stupefying drug with intent to commit a sexual offence is not logically inconsistent with an acquittal on the substantive sexual offence, where the evidence supporting the intent offence is independent of the evidence supporting the substantive offence. A trial judge's conduct in responding to a jury request to adjourn deliberations, giving the conventional warning, and directing the jury to return the following morning may constitute in substance a sufficient order under s 54(b) of the Jury Act 1977, even absent a formal order; and in any event, the absence of a formal order does not necessarily result in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.