Where a jury convicts on counts not requiring proof of visible injury but acquits on counts alleging actual bodily harm, the difference in the nature of the charges may provide a rational basis for the apparent inconsistency, and the convictions will not be set aside as unreasonable. The ameliorative or compassionate role of the jury should not be relied upon to explain apparent factual inconsistency because such reasoning is speculative and adverse to the appellant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.