Where a complainant with an intellectual disability gives apparently damaging concessions in cross-examination in response to complex, multi-layered questions, but consistently maintains her account when asked simple, direct questions, the concessions carry little weight and the verdicts may be upheld as open to the jury. The concept of 'guessing' is inapt in the context of relating events that either occurred or did not.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.