Evidence that police asked an accused 'why would the complainant say these things if they were not true' during an interview does not of itself possess probative value at trial and should be excluded, notwithstanding the decision in R v Arundel, which addressed the significance of such questions for miscarriage of justice purposes rather than their admissibility. The passage from Callaway JA's judgment in Arundel frequently relied upon by trial judges does not support the proposition that such evidence is admissible. Inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence that are 'unremarkable' in the context of delayed sexual offence complaints will not render verdicts unsafe, and an acquittal on one count does not necessarily undermine convictions on other counts based on the same complainant's evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.