Where a complainant's evidence on one count is materially undermined by inconsistencies between prior statements and oral testimony and admitted memory impairment, but her evidence on another count remains consistent and unchallenged, the difference in evidence quality provides a rational basis for reconciling a conviction on one count with an acquittal on the other. A Markuleski direction is not required where the quality of evidence differs materially between counts such that the risk of unfairness does not squarely arise.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.