R v CGA & Anor

In an appeal against allegedly inconsistent jury verdicts, the question is not whether verdicts are logically irreconcilable in the abstract. The Court of Appeal must examine the facts and issues as presented, including the prosecution case, evidence, directions and route to verdict. Verdicts may be unsafe where they conflict with that presentation, even if strict logic permits reconciliation.

Where separate counts required attribution of each injury to one of two defendants, and the prosecution neither advanced joint enterprise nor identified which defendant caused which injury, convictions of both defendants for causing all injuries could not safely stand. Speculative theories of divided responsibility or material contribution were insufficient. Alternative causing-or-allowing offences under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 provided the appropriate basis for a retrial where the statutory conditions were met.

The appellants, two parents, were convicted at the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent after a retrial concerning serious injuries suffered by their infant daughter. The indictment contained separate counts for each injury against each appellant. The prosecution did not allege joint enterprise or identify which appellant had caused each injury.

The jury convicted both appellants of causing grievous bodily harm with intent in relation to the same injuries. ZFX was also convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, while CGA was not convicted on alternative causing-or-allowing counts. ZFX appealed with permission, and CGA obtained an extension of time and leave to appeal. The central issue was whether the verdicts were irrational and unsafe, and what consequential orders should follow.

1. Appeals allowed. The court quashed both appellants’ convictions under sections 18 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
2. Applicable test. Applying R v Fanning [2016] EWCA Crim 550, the court held that an appellant alleging inconsistent verdicts must show that no reasonable jury properly applying its mind to the facts could have reached the verdicts. The question must be assessed by reference to the facts and issues as presented at trial. It is necessary to consider how the case was opened, how the evidence emerged, how it was presented to the jury, and the judge’s directions and route to verdict. As illustrated by R v Green [2005] EWCA Crim 2513, verdicts may be unsafe where they are inconsistent with the way the case was presented, even if they are not strictly logically inconsistent.
3. Application. The indictment and route to verdict required the jury to decide which appellant had caused each distinct injury. The prosecution did not advance joint enterprise, did not identify a division of injuries between the appellants, and did not provide an appropriate direction on joint principal or accessory liability. The theory that each appellant had materially contributed to the same injuries was unsupported by the expert evidence and had never been raised at trial. All proposed reconciliations were speculative or inconsistent with the indictment, evidence, directions or verdicts. No reasonable jury could rationally convict both appellants of causing all the injuries.
4. Alternative counts and retrial. Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 was designed for cases where the jury cannot identify which household member inflicted serious injury but can establish the statutory failure-to-protect conditions. CGA was ordered to be retried on those counts. Retrial on the sections 18, 20 and 47 counts was refused because the evidence would be no better and could not safely establish responsibility. The court declined to substitute a section 5 verdict under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, since the factual basis of the section 18 convictions was unclear.
5. Sentence and bail. ZFX’s sentence of no separate penalty on the section 5 counts was quashed because alternative counts should lie on the file, applying R v Ismail [2019] EWCA Crim 290. Sentencing was deferred until CGA’s retrial. ZFX was granted unconditional bail; any application by CGA was left to the Crown Court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeals were allowed and the convictions under sections 18 and 47 were quashed: [2026] EWCA Crim 385.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent — Following an aborted first trial, the appellants were retried before His Honour Judge Graeme Smith in January 2025 and convicted on the relevant counts.