Inconsistencies in a child complainant's evidence about the date of alleged offences do not necessarily render verdicts unreasonable where independent evidence from other witnesses is capable of resolving doubts as to the date, and where the inconsistencies are at least partially the product of the interview process. An error in identifying the standard non-parole period cannot be assumed to have had no influence on the sentence imposed. A fixed term of imprisonment cannot be imposed for an offence carrying a standard non-parole period under s 45 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.