Fletcher, R v

Fletcher, R v

The jury's verdicts were not so inconsistent as to require appellate intervention. The jury was entitled to differentiate between counts based on the specificity and detail of the evidence, and the judge had given a proper separate treatment direction. The appellant did not discharge the burden of showing that the verdicts could not stand together.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: David Ernest Fletcher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Inconsistent Verdicts, Sexual Offences, Jury Directions, Appeals Against Conviction
Criminal Law Inconsistent Verdicts Sexual Offences Jury Directions Appeals Against Conviction

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

David Ernest Fletcher

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's verdicts were so inconsistent as to render the convictions unsafe and require appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's verdicts were not so inconsistent as to require appellate intervention. The jury was entitled to differentiate between counts based on the specificity and detail of the evidence, and the judge had given a proper separate treatment direction. The appellant did not discharge the burden of showing that the verdicts could not stand together.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld