R v P

The appellant, P, appealed against his conviction in the District Court, where he was tried on an indictment that alleged various sexual offences against his daughter, who was under the age of sixteen. He was acquitted on counts 1-5 but convicted on counts 6 and 7, namely indecent dealing and incest, respectively. The appeal was brought on the ground that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory because the verdicts of guilty were inconsistent with the appellant having been acquitted on counts 1-5. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions on counts 6 and 7 were set aside. No retrial was ordered. The court found that the verdicts on counts 4 and 5 and that on count 6 were inconsistent, as explained in the authorities. The jury’s acceptance of the appellant’s guilt in relation to count 6, with respect to which the complainant’s evidence did not prove any conduct on the part of the appellant that could be understood to be indecent dealing, strengthened the conclusion that the verdict of guilty on count 7 could not be ascribed to a sensible analysis of the evidence or of the credibility of the complainant. The court concluded that it was not justified in ordering a retrial.