Where a child complainant's evidence contains multiple discrepancies — including references to a dreamlike state, concessions that the complainant could have been dreaming and could not identify the perpetrator with certainty, contradictory accounts of timing and nature of the offence, and inability to provide details of alleged similar acts — the verdict may be set aside as unreasonable even where the trial judge gave appropriate directions on credibility and reliability. The defence is not obliged to cross-examine to resolve ambiguities in the Crown's evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
13 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.