Solomons v R.

An appeal based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts succeeds only where the appellant shows both a logical inconsistency and that no legitimate, sensible chain of reasoning can explain it without rendering the conviction unsafe. A jury’s failure to agree on another count is not an inconsistent verdict. Different verdicts on allegations of separate sexual incidents may be rationally explained by the jury accepting one incident while remaining unsure about another. Even without logical inconsistency, exceptional circumstances may make a verdict unsafe. A lengthy retirement does not do so where the evidence, the verdicts and the directions show conscientious deliberation rather than compromise.

The appellant was tried at Harrow Crown Court before HHJ Dangor on five counts of historic sexual offences involving two childhood friends of his daughter. One count was withdrawn. The jury acquitted him on one count, convicted him by a 10–2 majority on count 3, and failed to reach verdicts on two further counts.

He appealed, with leave, against the conviction for count 3. He contended that it was inconsistent with the acquittal and with the jury’s failure to decide another count. He also argued that the length of the jury’s retirement and a possible inaccuracy in the summing up made the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction for indecent assault on count 3 was safe.

2. Applying the approach stated in Clarke and Fletcher, the court held that the appellant had not established logically inconsistent verdicts. The jury returned no verdict on counts 1 and 2, so those counts could not create an inconsistency. The acquittal on count 4 was also capable of a rational explanation: the jury may have been unsure that the alleged incident occurred or, if it did, that it was indecent.

3. The court rejected the premise that the conduct charged in counts 2 to 5 had necessarily occurred on the same occasion. The evidence supported the conclusion that count 3 concerned a discrete, fully clothed incident. The guilty verdict therefore did not conflict with the evidence or verdict concerning the other alleged incidents.

4. The court considered the guidance in Dhillon [2010] EWCA Crim. 1577. Unlike allegations forming facets of a single sexual encounter, separately occurring incidents may properly attract different verdicts because a jury may be sure of one allegation but not another. The present verdict was readily explained on that basis.

5. Although Bell recognised that exceptional circumstances may make a verdict unsafe without logical inconsistency, none arose here. The retirement was lengthy but showed care, not compromise. The judge’s directions were accurate and complete, including directions on the disadvantages caused by delayed complaints. Any possible inaccuracy in the summing up was immaterial because it depended on the rejected premise that counts 3 and 4 occurred on the same occasion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2011] EWCA Crim 1.
• Crown Court at Harrow: before HHJ Dangor, the jury convicted the appellant by a 10–2 majority on count 3, acquitted him on count 4, and failed to reach verdicts on counts 1 and 2. Count 5 was withdrawn from the jury.