R v Georgeson

The appellant, Ms. Georgeson, appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against her conviction on one count of possessing methylamphetamine for supply. The appeal was based on two grounds: that the verdict on the second count was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and that this verdict was inconsistent with her acquittal on a prior count. The Director of Public Prosecutions conceded that the ground of inconsistent verdicts was reasonably arguable, and the appeal was referred to the Court on both grounds.

The Court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict of guilty on the second count was reasonably open to them on the evidence presented, and whether this verdict was legally inconsistent with the jury's acquittal of the appellant on the first count. The appellant argued that the evidence supporting the guilty verdict on the second count was no more compelling than the evidence relating to the first count, thus rendering the verdicts inconsistent.

The Chief Justice, with whom Vanstone and Nicholson JJ agreed, dismissed the appeal. His Honour observed that a complaint of inconsistent verdicts is a specific instance of the broader ground that a verdict is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. While acknowledging the strength of the prosecution's case on both counts, the Chief Justice found that there was additional evidence that supported the guilty verdict on the second count, thereby dispelling any reasonable doubt about the jury's conclusion. The Court concluded that the verdict on the second count was neither inconsistent with the acquittal on the first count nor unsupported by the evidence.