When inconsistency of verdict is raised on appeal, the court must conduct two inquiries: first, whether there is a reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence; and second, whether there is a rational distinction between the guilty verdicts and the acquittals. The acquittals must be factored into the unreasonableness analysis. Where the only explanation for acquittals is doubt about the complainant's veracity, that doubt must affect all verdicts. However, where a rational distinction exists — such as a temporal dividing line after which the accused's knowledge of non-consent was established — convictions on some counts may stand alongside acquittals on others.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.