PA v R

The case of PA v R involved an appeal by the applicant against their conviction on one count of committing an act of indecency against a person aged 13. The applicant was acquitted on three other counts, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on a fifth count. The applicant appealed on the grounds that the conviction on one count and the jury's failure to agree on another count resulted in inconsistent verdicts, and that the conviction was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the conviction on one count and the jury's failure to agree on another could be considered inconsistent verdicts, and whether the conviction was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The court noted that there was no New South Wales authority on the issue of whether a jury's failure to agree on a verdict could be regarded as analogous to a verdict. There were conflicting authorities in Queensland and Victoria, and the court found no authority in New South Wales to support the notion that a jury's failure to agree on a verdict could be considered an inconsistent verdict. Therefore, the inconsistent verdicts ground was not made out.

The court further examined whether the conviction was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the conviction was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood. The court found no error in the conviction and upheld the trial judge's decision.