Pillay v The Queen

The applicants in Pillay v The Queen were convicted of indecent assault at their first trial, with the jury unable to reach unanimous verdicts on two charges of rape. They were subsequently acquitted of the rape charges at their second trial. The applicants sought leave to appeal against their convictions for indecent assault, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent given the jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict on the rape charges in the first trial, where the circumstances of the charges were substantially the same. The court was required to decide whether the verdict of guilty on the charge of indecent assault was inconsistent with the jury's inability to reach unanimous verdicts on the rape charges.

The court noted that in cases where a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict on certain charges, the inconsistent verdicts doctrine may apply, requiring the acquittal of all charges. The court considered whether the circumstances of the indecent assault charge and the rape charges were so similar that a guilty verdict on the indecent assault charge could not be reconciled with the jury's inability to reach a verdict on the rape charges. The court found that the circumstances were indeed substantially the same, and the verdicts were inconsistent. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and entering verdicts of acquittal on all charges.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the applicants' convictions for indecent assault and to enter verdicts of acquittal on all charges, reflecting the inconsistency between the guilty verdict for indecent assault and the inability of the jury to reach a verdict on the substantially similar rape charges. This decision underscores the importance of the consistency of verdicts in criminal trials and the application of the inconsistent verdicts doctrine where appropriate.