Evidence called to corroborate a complainant in a sexual offence case that contradicts the complainant's account in material respects should not be left to the jury as capable of being corroborative, even if it is admissible as relevant evidence. Where such evidence is left as capable of corroboration, the trial judge must direct the jury's attention to the significant inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the purportedly corroborative evidence. A direction to disregard a complainant's emotional outbursts may be insufficient to cure the prejudice where the outbursts are repeated, deliberate, and observed to have a visible effect on the jury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.