A delay of approximately two to three months between alleged sexual offences and the laying of charges does not constitute 'substantial delay' requiring a Longman/Crampton warning to the jury, absent specific forensic prejudice. The question of whether delay is substantial is for the trial judge, and the purpose of the warning is to alert the jury to difficulties they may not otherwise appreciate. Where a complainant is shown a photograph of the accused's body to clarify a discrepancy in her evidence, this does not engage identification evidence principles if the real issue is the reliability of the complainant's evidence rather than the identity of the accused.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.