An equivocal statement by an accused ('I did, but I didn't') cannot be treated as a lie capable of corroborating the complainant's account where there is no independent evidence clearly establishing the statement was a lie. Medical evidence of injuries consistent with forceful intercourse with a virgin does not constitute such independent evidence because forceful intercourse with a virgin is not necessarily non-consensual. Medical experts should not be permitted to effectively swear the issue of consent. Evidence of a complainant's virginity remains admissible and relevant to the issue of consent, particularly where the defence relies on it to explain genital injuries.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.