R v WALSH

The appeal before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerned a conviction for possession of a firearm without a licence. The appellant had been found guilty by a jury on eight counts of this offence, but acquitted on five others. The appeal specifically challenged the guilty verdict on count 11, arguing it was inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts returned on four other counts where the evidence was essentially identical.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the guilty verdict on count 11 was so illogical and unreasonable, given the acquittal on counts with indistinguishable evidence, that it suggested a failure on the part of the jury to properly perform its function. The court was required to consider the principles governing inconsistent verdicts, particularly the test of logic and reasonableness, and whether the jury's decision could be reconciled with the evidence presented.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding the guilty verdict on count 11 to be unreasonable and unsafe. It reasoned that the evidence relating to count 11 was indistinguishable from the evidence in respect of counts 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10, on which the jury had returned not guilty verdicts. The prosecution conceded that these acquittals could not be explained by a sense of mercy. Furthermore, the evidence for count 11 was clearly distinguishable from the evidence supporting the guilty verdicts on other counts, which involved admissions by the appellant or direct physical evidence like fingerprints. Consequently, the conviction on count 11 was set aside and a verdict of not guilty was substituted.