The Court of Criminal Appeal held that differential verdicts of guilty on count 6 (sexual touching of breasts) and not guilty on count 7 (squeezing nipple) were not inconsistent, because the rational explanation lay in the differing levels of specificity of the two acts: the complainant did not see the alleged nipple squeeze and her initial complaint described the conduct in terms more consistent with general breast fondling, making it logical for the jury to be satisfied of the broader touching but not the more specific act. On the sentence appeal, the Court held that a finding of skin-to-skin contact on count 1 was reasonably open on the evidence, where the complainant's description of the offender using a finger to stretch her underwear away from her body necessarily implied contact between finger and skin.
The full text is available to signed-in members.