R v Pollard

The appeal arose from a conviction by a jury of the appellant on one count of rape and acquittals on two other counts of rape of the same complainant. The appellant argued that the jury's guilty verdict on count 2 was unreasonable due to the acquittals on counts 1 and 3, given the varying degrees of evidence regarding penetration. The appellant also argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury by not providing a Robinson-style direction, which would have warned the jury to approach the complainant's evidence with caution due to the circumstances surrounding her credibility. The court was required to determine whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the trial judge had erred in the direction given to the jury.

The court first addressed the issue of inconsistent verdicts, noting that the evidence on counts 1 and 3 was much weaker than on count 2, where the issue of consent was central. The court found that the jury was entitled to convict on count 2 while acquitting on counts 1 and 3, as the differences in evidence and the focus on consent provided a rational basis for the verdicts. Regarding the misdirection, the court held that the trial judge had appropriately directed the jury to consider the complainant's evidence carefully, taking into account her circumstances and inconsistencies. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that the trial judge did not misdirect them.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the jury's verdicts were consistent and rational, given the varying evidence on each count. The trial judge's direction to the jury was considered adequate in light of the circumstances surrounding the complainant's credibility. Consequently, the conviction on count 2 was upheld, and the acquittals on counts 1 and 3 were maintained.