Where a jury acquits on an earlier count but convicts on a later count in the same trial, the conviction is not inconsistent if there was additional evidence available by the time of the later offence from which the jury could infer the accused's knowledge. The absence of an innocent explanation for the later conduct, combined with intervening evidence of involvement in the criminal enterprise, can rationally explain different verdicts on counts arising from the same course of conduct.
The full text is available to signed-in members.