Where a complainant's evidence varies in quality across multiple counts — particularly regarding timing, state of consciousness, and corroboration — a jury's acquittals or inability to agree on some counts does not render a conviction on a stronger count inconsistent. The case illustrates that differences in the date-specificity of evidence, the recency of events, and the complainant's state of awareness at the time of alleged offences can provide rational explanations for different verdicts across counts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.