In sexual assault cases involving multiple counts dependent on the complainant's credibility, differing verdicts may be rationally explained by differences in the supporting evidence for each count (such as absence of forensic evidence, failure to attend medical examination, or delay in complaint) without requiring rejection of the complainant's overall credibility. Lengthy jury deliberation and initial inability to reach unanimity do not of themselves suggest unreasonable or compromise verdicts. On sentencing, where an adult offender is sentenced alongside juvenile co-offenders, the parity principle is greatly diminished where there is a significant age difference, and the offender's youth cannot be given dominant weight where the offending is serious and the offender has a significant prior record of similar offending.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.