The case illustrates the application of the M v The Queen test in a sexual assault case where the Crown case depended almost entirely on the complainant's evidence, with alleged inconsistencies between the complainant's trial evidence, prior statements, medical evidence, and letters written by the complainant. Apparent inconsistency between an acquittal on one count and conviction on related counts may be explained by reference to the complaint evidence supporting some but not all counts. Comparison of sentences imposed at a retrial with those imposed at an earlier trial by a different judge on different counts is of limited utility.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.