A jury's acquittal on manslaughter and conviction on assault occasioning death while intoxicated under s 25A(2) is not necessarily inconsistent, even where the jury was directed it could only convict if satisfied the accused deliberately stabbed the deceased. The evaluative nature of assessing whether an act is 'dangerous' means there is scope for a jury to find deliberate stabbing occurred but not be satisfied the act was dangerous, particularly where there is debate about the degree of force applied. Where a verdict is found to represent a compromise, the appropriate remedy is a retrial rather than an acquittal on the alternative offence. The mandatory minimum sentence under s 25B does not preclude the characterisation of a s 25A(2) verdict as 'merciful' from the jury's perspective.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.