The inconsistent verdicts doctrine, as applied by analogy to cases where a jury convicts on one charge but fails to agree on another (per Pillay v The Queen), does not render a conviction unsafe where the evidence bearing on each charge is significantly different, even if the charges arise from the same sexual encounter. Where different defences and different evidence are available on each charge, a jury's differentiated outcome may be rationally explicable and consistent with the jury performing its function diligently.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.