Dhillon v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 1577 (08 July 2010)

Dhillon v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 1577 (08 July 2010)

The verdicts on counts 1, 3, and 4 were logically inconsistent and/or perverse, as there was no rational or evidential basis for distinguishing between the acts in counts 3 and 4, which occurred as part of a single sexual encounter and were admitted by both parties. No reasonable jury could have found the appellant guilty on counts 1 and 3 but not count 4. The inconsistency rendered the convictions unsafe and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Crim 1577
Parties
Appellant: Sukhbir Dhillon; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Inconsistent Verdicts, Sexual Offences, Jury Reasoning, Appeal Against Conviction, Safety of Conviction
Criminal Law Inconsistent Verdicts Sexual Offences Jury Reasoning Appeal Against Conviction Safety of 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhbir Dhillon

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's verdicts on counts 1, 3, and 4 were logically inconsistent and rendered the convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether there was a rational or evidential basis for the distinction between the counts

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts on counts 1, 3, and 4 were logically inconsistent and/or perverse, as there was no rational or evidential basis for distinguishing between the acts in counts 3 and 4, which occurred as part of a single sexual encounter and were admitted by both parties. No reasonable jury could have found the appellant guilty on counts 1 and 3 but not count 4. The inconsistency rendered the convictions unsafe and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions on counts 1 and 3 quashed