The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the jury's acquittal on a count of anal intercourse was rationally explicable by the uncertainty in the complainant's evidence as to timing and the date range in the indictment, rather than being attributable to doubts about her credibility, and was therefore not inconsistent with guilty verdicts on counts of fellatio and digital penetration tied to specific dates. On the extended unanimity direction issue, the Court held that where the Crown relies on a single act of sexual touching and two witnesses give somewhat different accounts of what occurred during that act, the jury need not be unanimous as to the precise evidentiary pathway to guilt, and no extended unanimity direction is required. Leave to appeal on the unanimity ground was refused under r 4.15 as there was no injustice in the atmosphere of the trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members.