Where unreasonableness of a verdict is asserted by reason of mixed verdicts, the inquiry extends beyond 'the whole of the evidence' (the M v The Queen test) to encompass 'the whole of the facts and circumstances of the particular case', including the significance of acquittals and any insight into the jury's reasoning. The Jones v The Queen approach applies only where no rational explanation for the acquittals can be found other than doubt about the complainant's credibility. A conclusion of compromise by a divided jury leads to an order for retrial, not acquittal. In sexual offence cases within marriage, differential verdicts may be rationally explained by differences in the evidence concerning communication of non-consent and the accused's state of mind, rather than by doubt about the complainant's credibility.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 144 later cases that cite this judgment.
99 of the 144 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.