Steele v R

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that guilty verdicts on counts of detention with intent to intimidate and robbery were not inconsistent with an acquittal on a count of recklessly wounding in company, because the evidence differed across counts and there were several rational bases on which the jury could accept parts of a key witness's evidence while rejecting others. The Court identified multiple permissible lines of reasoning including that the jury may have regarded the witness as probably truthful but required corroboration to reach satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt, that the witness had a specific narrow motive to lie only in relation to the wounding count, and that the jury was entitled to treat evidence of an admission with particular caution. The Court also warned that extensions of time for criminal appeals should not be assumed to be granted automatically, particularly where delay may prejudice complainants and the community if a retrial is ordered.