Where a child complainant's evidence is given by VATE procedure under s.37B of the Evidence Act 1958 and the child's extreme youth renders cross-examination ineffective, the trial judge must give a clear warning carrying judicial authority that it would be dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. General comments about 'potential for error' that the jury is told they are free to reject are insufficient. The prohibition in s.23(2A) against warning that children are an unreliable class of witness does not relieve the judge of this obligation. The appropriate warning must be specific to the circumstances of the case, including the particular weaknesses in the evidence that cross-examination might have exposed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 23 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 23 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.