Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions

The appeal concerned a criminal matter heard by Mossop ACJ and Loukas-Karlsson JJ, with Ainslie-Wallace AJ sitting. The appellant sought to appeal against a jury verdict, arguing that the verdicts returned were inconsistent and therefore unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The core of the appellant's submission was that a finding of not guilty on one count was factually inconsistent with a finding of guilty on another count.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were so inconsistent as to be legally unsustainable. This required the court to consider whether there was an "obvious explanation" for any apparent inconsistency, particularly in light of the evidence presented in relation to each distinct charge.

The court reasoned that an apparent inconsistency in verdicts does not automatically render them invalid. Instead, the court must examine whether there is a rational explanation for the jury's findings. In this instance, the court found that the evidence supporting one count was demonstrably clearer and more prominent than the evidence supporting the other. This difference in the strength and clarity of the evidence provided a logical basis for the jury to reach different conclusions on the respective charges, indicating that the jury had conscientiously performed their duty.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.