R v KENNETT

The appeal before the Court of Appeal of South Australia concerned the appellant, R v Kennett, who was charged with four counts of rape and one count of assault. The charges arose from events occurring on 23 and 24 February 2016, involving the appellant and the complainant, who had a prior acquaintance. The appellant admitted to punching the complainant, causing injury, but claimed all sexual intercourse was consensual.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict of guilty on count 3, alongside acquittals on counts 1, 2, and 4, constituted inconsistent verdicts. Furthermore, the court considered whether the conviction on count 3 was unsafe and unreasonable, or against the weight of the evidence, a question intrinsically linked to the issue of verdict inconsistency.

The court applied the principles articulated by the High Court in *MacKenzie v The Queen*, which requires appellate courts to balance respect for jury verdicts with the need to intervene where inconsistency casts doubt on a conviction. The court noted that while jury verdicts are generally respected, an appellate court must determine if a conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory when inconsistency is apparent. The test for inconsistency between verdicts on different counts is one of logic and reasonableness, and intervention is warranted only where the inconsistency suggests a compromise of the jury's duty, confusion, or misunderstanding of the law, thereby risking injustice.

The court found that the determination of the appeal on the grounds of inconsistent verdicts and an unsafe or unreasonable verdict was so intertwined that they were conveniently dealt with together. The court's reasoning focused on the logical connection between the verdicts and the potential for injustice arising from any apparent inconsistency.