Where a jury returns different verdicts on multiple sexual offence counts, the qualitative difference in the nature of the conduct (here, insertion of a cold object versus use of fingers or mouth) and any observable reaction by the complainant (here, flinching) can provide a rational basis for the jury being satisfied of the accused's guilty mental state on one count but not others. A sentencing judge's remarks on sentence may be considered by the appellate court as a cross-check on the rationality of verdicts, though the court is not bound by them.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.