Youkhanis v The Queen

In the case of Youkhanis v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of stealing from the person and acquitted of robbery. The appellant appealed the conviction on the basis that the verdicts were inconsistent, unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The jury had returned alternative verdicts of guilty of stealing from the person and not guilty of robbery. The appellant argued that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the jury had compromised. The appellant also argued that the verdict of guilty of stealing from the person was unreasonable because the evidence of the complainant was not credible and there was no corroborating evidence.

The High Court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent, as the jury could have found that the appellant was not guilty of robbery because there was no evidence of a threat or offer of violence coinciding with the taking of the money. The jury may have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of stealing from the person, but not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of robbery. The Court found that the evidence of the complainant was not necessarily lacking in credibility and reliability, as the jury was entitled to accept or reject the evidence of any witness. The Court found that there was strong circumstantial evidence supporting the Crown case, but the jury had the primary responsibility of determining guilt or innocence.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The Court held that the verdict of guilty of stealing from the person was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the jury was not required to accept the evidence of the complainant or any other witness. The jury was entitled to reject the evidence of the complainant if they found it to be lacking in credibility or reliability, or if they found that the evidence was contradicted by other evidence or circumstances. The Court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupported on the evidence, and that the appellant was properly convicted of stealing from the person.