The case illustrates the application of the inconsistent verdicts framework from Jones v The Queen, Mackenzie v The Queen and MFA v The Queen, confirming that acquittals on some counts in a multi-count domestic violence trial do not necessarily render guilty verdicts on other counts unreasonable where rational explanations for the acquittals can be identified (such as vagueness of evidence on attempt charges, confusion between counts, or the relatively minor nature of an alleged assault). An erroneous direction introducing recklessness as an alternative mental element for an offence of specific intent does not produce a miscarriage of justice where the facts accepted by the jury could only support a finding of specific intent.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.