Cavaiuolo v The Queen

The appeal concerned the appellant, Cavaiuolo, who was convicted on two counts of aggravated assault. The dispute arose from the jury's verdicts, which the appellant argued were inconsistent and unreasonable. The matter was heard by Lovell, Livesey, and Bleby JJ on appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, and if so, whether this inconsistency rendered the verdict on Count 1 unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, thereby establishing a likelihood of injustice.

The Court reasoned that the verdicts on Count 1 and Count 2 were irreconcilable. The evidence presented in relation to both counts was substantially the same, and the jury's finding of guilt on Count 2, but not on Count 1, could not be explained by a jury taking a merciful approach. This inconsistency led the Court to conclude that the appellant had established the likelihood of an injustice.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction on Count 1, and acquitted the appellant of that count.