Andrew v The Queen

The appellant was convicted on two charges of rape and indecent assault, and acquitted on three other charges of rape and indecent assault. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent and therefore the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the verdicts were inconsistent and, if so, whether this inconsistency rendered the conviction on the charges upon which the appellant was convicted otherwise unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court also considered whether the different evidence relating to the charges upon which the appellant was convicted affected the consistency of the verdicts.

The court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that the different evidence relating to the charges upon which the appellant was convicted did not affect the consistency of the verdicts. The court found that there was no logical inconsistency between the verdicts of acquittal on charges one to three and conviction on charges four and five. The court also held that the inconsistency between the acquittals and convictions did not render the conviction on charges four and five otherwise unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court found that the jury was entitled to believe the evidence of the complainants on charges four and five and to disbelieve the evidence of the complainants on charges one to three. The court held that the verdicts were open to the jury and that there was no error in the trial judge’s directions to the jury.

The appeal was dismissed. The convictions on charges four and five were upheld, and the appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that the conviction on charges four and five was safe and satisfactory. The court held that the jury was entitled to believe the evidence of the complainants on charges four and five and to disbelieve the evidence of the complainants on charges one to three. The court found that the verdicts were open to the jury and that there was no error in the trial judge’s directions to the jury. The convictions on charges four and five were therefore upheld, and the appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed.