ED v The Queen

The appeal concerned a criminal conviction where the appellant, ED, was found guilty on some counts but acquitted on others, leading to an appeal against the reasonableness of the jury's verdict. The matter was heard by Murrell CJ, Mossop and Bromwich JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a jury's verdict, which included both guilty and not guilty findings based on substantially the same evidence, could be considered unreasonable. The Court was required to assess whether there was a logical explanation for such differing verdicts, considering the evidence presented to the jury and the possibility of reasonable doubt.

The Court reasoned that different verdicts on counts arising from the same evidence are not inherently unreasonable. The jury is entitled to consider each count separately and may acquit on one count while convicting on another if there is a logical explanation for the acquittal, such as a finding of reasonable doubt in relation to that specific count. The Court emphasised that it must have regard to the evidence before the jury when assessing whether a verdict is unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the verdicts of guilty on Counts 1, 4, 6, and 7 were confirmed.