Evidence of subsequent vaginal pain is irrelevant and inadmissible to prove digital penetration in the absence of medical evidence establishing a causal link between the alleged penetration and the pain. Where a child complainant's evidence of penetration is vague and uncertain, was first elicited by a leading question from a parent, and the complainant concedes under cross-examination that she cannot remember whether penetration occurred, a conviction for sexual penetration may be unsafe and unsatisfactory even though the jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness. The element of intention to penetrate must be separately established and cannot be assumed from an intention to commit an indecent act.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.