R v Fanning

In the matter of R v Fanning, the appellant appealed against a conviction on a charge of indecent treatment of a girl under 16. The appellant was acquitted on a related charge of indecent treatment of a girl under 14. The central issue before the court was whether the acquittal on the second count was inconsistent with the conviction on the first count, such that the verdicts could not reasonably stand together. The appellant argued that the acquittal on count 2 demonstrated that the jury did not accept the complainant’s evidence, which was necessary to support the conviction on count 1.

The court considered the established principles regarding inconsistent verdicts, noting that the test for inconsistency is one of logic and reasonableness. The court assessed whether a reasonable jury, properly applying their minds to the facts, could have arrived at the differing verdicts. The court highlighted that different verdicts could result from a jury correctly following instructions to consider each count separately and applying the requirement that all elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the jury might find the quality of a crucial witness’s evidence variable, even though it is accepted as generally truthful.

After considering the evidence and the applicable principles, the court found that there was a proper way to reconcile the verdicts. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could have arrived at the differing verdicts, and thus the verdicts were not inconsistent. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction on count 1 was upheld.