Dobson, R.

A conviction challenged as inconsistent with an acquittal is unsafe where the verdicts are logically irreconcilable and the only apparent reconciliation lies outside the case which the judge left to the jury. Logical inconsistency alone is insufficient. A conviction may remain safe if the jury had a legally available explanation within the parameters of the summing-up. Where interrelated counts may permit an alternative basis of conviction, counsel and the judge should resolve that issue before closing speeches and the summing-up. The jury must then receive a clear direction on whether that alternative is available and its factual basis.

At Worcester Crown Court, Stuart Dobson faced charges arising from two incidents. In relation to Jonathan Crow, the prosecution alleged that he wounded Mr Crow with a claw hammer. The indictment included a charge of wounding with intent, with unlawful wounding under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as an alternative, and a separate charge of possessing the hammer as an offensive weapon.

The jury acquitted Dobson of possessing the offensive weapon. It acquitted him of wounding with intent but convicted him of unlawful and malicious wounding. Dobson appealed that conviction on the ground that the verdicts were inconsistent. The central question was whether a possible non-hammer mechanism for the wound could reconcile the verdicts when it had not been left to the jury in the summing-up.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the conviction and sentence on count 3 for unlawful and malicious wounding. The verdict on that count was unsafe because it was logically inconsistent with the acquittal on count 4.
2. The court adopted the inconsistent-verdict principles formulated in R v Dhillon [2010] EWCA Crim 1577, subject to an important qualification. Logical inconsistency is necessary but not sufficient. A conviction may survive only if there is an explanation for the inconsistency, and that explanation must fall within the parameters of the case as the judge summed it up.
3. The prosecution had presented the count 3 case solely on the footing that the wound was inflicted with a hammer. The prosecution had not relied on the appellant's admitted punch, or a consequent fall against a wall, as an alternative mechanism for the wound. The judge's summing-up likewise treated that preliminary scuffle as outside count 3. The suggested non-hammer explanation could therefore not reconcile the verdicts.
4. The court also gave procedural guidance. Before closing speeches and the summing-up, counsel and the judge should address the interrelationship of potentially inconsistent counts, any alternative route to conviction, and the factual basis for it. Applying R v Coutts [2006] UKHL 39, the judge may leave an obvious and viable alternative verdict despite the parties' wishes, but must direct the jury clearly if that course is taken.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2011] EWCA Crim 1856, allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the conviction and sentence for unlawful and malicious wounding on count 3.
• Worcester Crown Court: The jury acquitted the appellant of possession of an offensive weapon on count 4, but convicted him of unlawful and malicious wounding on count 3 as an alternative to wounding with intent.