Inconsistencies in child complainants' accounts of sexual offending do not necessarily render guilty verdicts unreasonable, particularly where the inconsistencies are explicable by the young age and distressed condition of the complainants, and where carefully conducted police interviews produced consistent accounts. The undisputed presence of an adult in children's bedroom in the early hours of the morning is a powerful circumstance from which a jury may infer sexual purpose. For sentencing, the physical assault of an offender by victims' parents, while a relevant mitigating factor, does not constrain a sentencing judge from imposing actual imprisonment for sexual offences against children.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.