The inconsistent verdicts doctrine, as articulated in MacKenzie v The Queen, can be invoked by analogy where a jury convicts on one count but is unable to agree on another count, provided the failure to agree is logically inexplicable when set against the guilty verdict. A jury's inability to agree is not, strictly speaking, a 'verdict', but linguistics should not be allowed to triumph over justice. Where the evidence on the sole issue in dispute is identical across all charges and the acts occurred simultaneously, the absence of any rational explanation for the jury's differentiation renders the conviction unsafe.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.