general question about conviction

[RFLH]

Have a look at this

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJus...ourt/DG_072707

[fighter]

thanks RFLH :-)

[Rights Fighter]

Perverse verdicts (there is another name for it) can be used as a ground for appeal and it has worked in a very few cases. I shall check my database and if any are in the public domain I will post some up here.

[Rights Fighter]

NUMBER ONE:

R. v Kevin McCluskey ~ Court of Appeal ~ 27 May 1993 ~ [1994] 98 Cr. App. R. 216

.......that although the verdicts on manslaughter and affray were clearly inconsistent, the fact that two verdicts were shown to be logically inconsistent did not make the verdict complained of unsafe unless the only explanation for the inconsistency must or might be that the jury was confused and/or adopted the wrong approach. The jury in the present case were trying the most serious of crimes. The central issue was self-defence and, the judge having directed *217 them on that issue in the clearest terms three times, it was inconceivable that they had misunderstood it. Their acquittal on the relatively minor count of affray could be regarded as no more than a conclusion that, having convicted the appellant of manslaughter, the second count was academic

[Rights Fighter]

NUMBER TWO

R. v. Gough (1993) 97 Cr.App.R. 188, [1993] 3 W.L.R. 883, H.L., applied .

[For inconsistent verdicts, see Archbold (1993) para. 7-66

Archbold reference will be out of date but it will still be in there. Solicitor / barrister will know where to find it if it applies to this case.

The grounds of appeal were (1) that the verdicts on counts 1 and 2 were inconsistent and contrary to directions given by the trial judge, thereby rendering the verdict on count 1 unsafe and/or unsatisfactory; and (2) there was a material irregularity in that a member of the jury had with him in the jury room, during the greater part of the jury's deliberations, a portable telephone upon which he may have communicated with persons outside.

The appeal was argued on April 29, 1993, when the following cases were cited: Chandler, The Times, April 16, 1992 , Ketteridge (1914) 11 Cr.App.R. 54 , Alexander (1973) 58 Cr.App.R. 294 and Goodson (1975) 60 Cr.App.R. 266, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 549 .

[Rights Fighter]

NUMBER THREE:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/2851.html

1. 
   
2. It seems to us that there is no way that the verdicts as a whole could be justified or read as being consistent overall. We invited counsel for the Crown to explain to us the evidential basis for each of the jury’s verdicts, but she was unable to provide such an analysis. This did not surprise us, because we do not find a pattern in the verdicts, though they cover a single sequence of events. We have considered Garland J’s criticisms of the summing-up, and agree with them. But we do not agree with the section 31 judge as to his “... possible chain of reasoning ...” to explain the verdicts. In relation to Count 4 the complainant was cross-examined on behalf of Sentongo and accepted that he had attempted to pull Morina off her at the end, after Morina raped her, as she believed. If that had been the scenario, then Sentongo would have been found not guilty of attempted rape. Yet the jury found him guilty. Certainly the Crown could not suggest a set of facts which was consistent with both the true verdict being given on each of the counts and the way the prosecution put their case.
   
3. Additionally, Garland J, in granting leave under section 31, criticised the summing-up as being diffuse and unstructured and confusing We agree with the Garland as to his criticisms of the summing-up (“... something of a muddle ...”), and his conclusion that it did not give the jury the assistance they required on the facts of this case.
   
4. For those reasons we feel constrained to allow the appeals against conviction.

[Rights Fighter]

NUMBER FOUR

The most recent to my knowledge:

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Crim 1006 ~ No: 201003303/D1

R v K


.........In these circumstances, we cannot consider the verdicts to be safe. Indeed we would consider the verdicts in this case to be unsafe even without the added context of the Watson direction. ........

That context however makes the solution for this appeal still easier to come to. In other words this case has much material which reflects an earlier case R v TP where Mantell LJ, giving the judgment of this court, considered that the inconsistent verdicts in that case reflected a compromise which the jury had wrongly understood their Watson direction to invite them towards.

For all these reasons we would allow this appeal and quash the verdict on count 2.

[Rights Fighter]

There will be many more I do not know about. Most applications using grounds of "perverse" (or inconsistent) verdicts, generally fail. But some do not.

[gem]

thank you very much for the input and your valuable time RF
i can see now this could be an uphill struggle i will do some research on this

[Rights Fighter]

Most are not in the public domain so your appeals sol will need these refs.

Where abouts in the UK are you Gem?

sorry I have to ask but I am working on three appeals at the mo and helping out on these forums so brain all over the place - is yours an historic case?

[gem]

middlesbrough
sort of historic allegation was 3months later
it was a false allegation
he never had any sort of relationship with her
he has never been alone with her no sexual contact at all
thanks RF

[Rights Fighter]

Historic tends to mean four years or more before.

I'll send you a PM

[gem]

thankyou so much RF

[Rights Fighter]

I emailed instead!

[gem]

thankyou RF i have replied many thanks again