Fanning & Ors, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 550 (28 April 2016)

Fanning & Ors, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 550 (28 April 2016)

The proper approach to appeals based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts is to apply the test in R v Stone as adopted in R v Durante: the appellant must show that the verdicts are so inconsistent that no reasonable jury, properly directed and applying their minds to the facts, could have arrived at the differing conclusions. The burden remains on the appellant. The court should not elaborate or add gloss to this test. In the specific cases, the verdicts were not inconsistent or could be rationally explained, and the convictions were safe.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 550
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: David Fanning; Applicant: Stuart Robert John Kerner; Applicant: Tomas Osianikovas; Applicant: Kasparas Smilginis; Appellant: Victor Lucas De Jesus
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction
Outcome
All appeals and applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Inconsistent Verdicts, Jury Verdicts, Appeals Against Conviction, Sexual Offences, Burden of Proof, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Inconsistent Verdicts Jury Verdicts Appeals Against Conviction Sexual Offences Burden of Proof Jury Directions

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 4 Authorities cited 42 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

David Fanning

Appellant

Stuart Robert John Kerner

Applicant

Tomas Osianikovas

Applicant

Kasparas Smilginis

Applicant

Victor Lucas De Jesus

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper approach to appeals based on allegedly inconsistent jury verdicts?
  2. 2 Should the test in R v Stone and R v Durante be applied or the more elaborate formulations developed in later cases?
  3. 3 Are the verdicts in the specific cases factually inconsistent or unsafe?

Ratio Decidendi

The proper approach to appeals based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts is to apply the test in R v Stone as adopted in R v Durante: the appellant must show that the verdicts are so inconsistent that no reasonable jury, properly directed and applying their minds to the facts, could have arrived at the differing conclusions. The burden remains on the appellant. The court should not elaborate or add gloss to this test. In the specific cases, the verdicts were not inconsistent or could be rationally explained, and the convictions were safe.

Court Disposition

All appeals and applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal of David Fanning dismissed.
  • Application of Stuart Kerner dismissed.