Pears v The King

[2025] VSCA 35

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Unreasonable verdict
5. › Whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
6. › Inconsistencies in prosecution witness evidence
7. › Whether inconsistencies required rejection of both accounts
8. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 276(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Inconsistent verdicts
5. › Whether guilty verdicts inconsistent with co-offender's acquittal on separate charge
6. › Whether verdicts affront logic and common sense
7. › Whether verdicts explicable by reference to quality and nature of evidence on each charge

Quick Take

Inconsistencies in prosecution witness evidence as to the precise acts of a secondary offender do not render guilty verdicts unreasonable where there is overall consistency as to the nature of the accused's role, and an acquittal on a separate charge is explicable by the absence of independent corroborating evidence for that charge.