The court distilled five principles governing inconsistent verdict appeals: (1) no hard and fast rule; (2) the primary consideration is whether there is an acceptable explanation for differentiation as a matter of logic and reasonableness; (3) the possibility of merciful acquittals must be excluded; (4) where compromise alone explains the inconsistency, a new trial rather than acquittal is appropriate; (5) where factors additional to inconsistency tend to make the verdicts unreasonable, this weighs in favour of substituting acquittals. A sentence in MacKenzie at 367 ('If there is some evidence to support the verdict said to be inconsistent, it is not the role of the appellate court, upon this ground, to substitute its opinion of the facts for one which was open to the jury') was identified as a slip that misstates the principle from Hayes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.