R v Smillie

In the case of R v Smillie, the appellant was convicted on one count of arson and one count of fraud, but was acquitted on two other counts of arson and fraud. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsatisfactory, and that the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittals. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues were whether the verdicts were so unreasonable that they ought not to be allowed to stand, and whether there was a rational basis for the differing verdicts. The court examined the evidence and considered whether the jury had been properly directed on the reliability of the evidence of an accomplice. The court also assessed whether the verdicts on the guilty counts were inconsistent with the acquittals.

The court found that the verdicts were indeed unreasonable and unsatisfactory. The evidence of the accomplice was critical, and the jury had not been sufficiently warned about the unreliability of such evidence. The court held that the jury should have been directed that an accomplice's evidence needed to be treated with particular care, and that it could not stand alone unless corroborated by other evidence. The verdicts on the guilty counts were inconsistent with the acquittals, and there was no rational basis for the differing verdicts.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The convictions and verdicts on counts 3 and 4 were set aside, and verdicts of acquittal were entered on both counts.