R v DAL

The appellant appealed against his conviction on eleven counts arising from the abduction and sexual abuse of two young female tourists. The appellant was convicted on eleven counts and acquitted on one count with the jury failing to return a verdict on the other eleven counts. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the jury's inconsistent verdicts suggested that they had acted unreasonably or failed to properly understand their function. Specifically, the court considered whether a failure to reach a verdict could be equated with an acquittal for the purposes of establishing inconsistent verdicts, and whether there was a rational explanation for the jury returning a verdict in relation to some counts and not others.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's failure to reach a verdict could be equated with an acquittal for the purposes of establishing inconsistent verdicts. The court found that there was a rational explanation for the jury returning a verdict in relation to some counts and not others, as the evidence in relation to some counts was stronger than that in relation to others. The court also held that the failure to convict on some counts could be explained as a "merciful disagreement" on the part of the jury. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.