Where an accused's post-offence admissions provide independent corroboration of a complainant's evidence on one count but not another, this constitutes a rational explanation for differing verdicts and defeats an inconsistent verdicts appeal. A jury directed to assess a complainant's evidence with care due to intoxication may rationally require independent support before being satisfied to the criminal standard, and the presence or absence of such support across different counts explains differing verdicts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.