The case illustrates the application of the Markuleski framework for inconsistent verdicts in child sexual assault cases where the complainant is accepted as truthful on matters of substance but unreliable on dates. Jury verdicts of conviction on some counts and acquittal on others are logically explicable where objective evidence corroborates the timing or substance of the counts on which convictions are returned. The departure from the preferred procedure in R v NZ for videotaped evidence of children does not necessarily give rise to a miscarriage of justice where the jury also had transcripts and requested cross-examination material.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.