Solomons v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1 (13 January 2011)

Solomons v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1 (13 January 2011)

The verdicts were not logically inconsistent, as the jury could have concluded that count 3 occurred on a separate occasion from counts 2 and 4. The evidence supported the jury's finding on count 3, and there was no indication of compromise or unsafe reasoning. The judge's directions were accurate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 1
Parties
Appellant: Alan Solomons; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Inconsistent Verdicts, Sexual Offences, Appeal Against Conviction, Jury Directions, Historical Sexual Abuse
Criminal Law Inconsistent Verdicts Sexual Offences Appeal Against Conviction Jury Directions Historical Sexual Abuse

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Solomons

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guilty verdict on count 3 was logically inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 4 and inability to reach verdicts on counts 1 and 2
  2. 2 Whether the guilty verdict on count 3 was unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts were not logically inconsistent, as the jury could have concluded that count 3 occurred on a separate occasion from counts 2 and 4. The evidence supported the jury's finding on count 3, and there was no indication of compromise or unsafe reasoning. The judge's directions were accurate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction on count 3 upheld