The principles concerning inconsistent verdicts are not applicable to the factual-finding exercise mandated by Chiro v The Queen in maintaining/persistent sexual abuse charges; a finding of 'not proved' on some occasions does not equate to a unanimous acquittal and may reflect the doubt of even a single juror. An overloaded indictment argument will not succeed where defence counsel made a rational forensic decision to have the impugned material before the jury. A sentence appeal based on post-sentence terminal illness will be refused as futile where no sentence within range would give the applicant hope of release; the prerogative of mercy is the appropriate avenue.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.