1Where a complainant's own evidence discloses that she did not react or say 'no' to certain sexual acts but physically resisted or indicated refusal in respect of others, a jury may rationally convict on the counts where resistance was communicated while acquitting on those where it was not, because the defence of honest and reasonable mistake as to consent may be excluded for the former but not the latter.
2A jury's inability to reach a verdict on a count cannot be equated with an acquittal and carries little weight in an inconsistency-of-verdicts analysis, because the hung count may reflect the eccentric view of a single juror rather than a collective reasonable doubt (R v DAL [2005] QCA 281 applied).
3R v Smillie (2002) 134 A Crim R 100 is confined to cases where there is no appreciable difference in the quality of evidence between counts; it does not apply where the evidence supporting different counts is materially distinguishable.
