Solomons v R.

Solomons v R.

The jury's verdicts are not inconsistent as count 3 likely occurred on a separate occasion from counts 1, 2, and 4. The guilty verdict on count 3 is supported by unequivocal evidence from SW, and the jury's inability to reach verdicts on other counts or acquittal on count 4 does not render the conviction unsafe. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Alan Solomons; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Indecent Assault, Inconsistent Verdicts, Jury Directions, Appeal Grounds
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Indecent Assault Inconsistent Verdicts Jury Directions Appeal Grounds

Source-derived case record

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 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guilty verdict on count 3 was 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 jury's verdicts are not inconsistent as count 3 likely occurred on a separate occasion from counts 1, 2, and 4. The guilty verdict on count 3 is supported by unequivocal evidence from SW, and the jury's inability to reach verdicts on other counts or acquittal on count 4 does not render the conviction unsafe. The summing up was accurate, and there is no indication of compromise or unsafe conviction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction on count 3 upheld
  • no retrial on counts 1 and 2