Differing verdicts on multiple counts of sexual offences against the same complainant are not inconsistent where the jury was specifically encouraged to doubt the complainant's evidence on the acquitted counts, there was independent corroboration for the convicted count, and the basis for doubting the evidence did not apply to the convicted count. A diary entry that was capable of undermining evidence on some counts but not others provided a rational basis for the differing verdicts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.