Rogers v R

The jury was properly directed to consider each count separately and could rationally be sure of guilt on one count while not being sure on others; the conviction is not unsafe.

Parties: Appellant: Ian Rogers; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 10 March 2004
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Indecent Assault, Inconsistency of Verdicts, Jury Directions

Criminal Law Indecent Assault Inconsistency of Verdicts 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Ian Rogers

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

1 Whether the conviction on one count of indecent assault is inconsistent with acquittals on other counts and thus unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was properly directed to consider each count separately and could rationally be sure of guilt on one count while not being sure on others; the conviction is not unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Conviction and sentence affirmed