The burden on an appellant alleging inconsistent verdicts is to demonstrate, by reference to the facts, evidence, witnesses and conduct of the trial, that the differing verdicts are actually irrational or repugnant to each other — not merely that they might be. Differences in the quality and character of evidence on different counts, including the availability of alternative innocent explanations for some counts, the presence or absence of consent issues, and the level of detail in the complainant's evidence, can rationally explain differing verdicts. A prosecution case supported by confessional evidence beyond the complainant's testimony is not solely dependent on the complainant's reliability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.