Where the prosecution advances alternative and factually inconsistent bases for conviction, one of which is not supported by admissible evidence, the proviso cannot cure the resulting misdirection because it goes to the heart of the trial and the basis of the jury's verdict. Complaint evidence admitted only to demonstrate consistency cannot be used to construct an alternative factual basis for the offence. A direction that the mental element of rape is satisfied if the accused was aware of the possibility that the complainant was not consenting is contrary to law.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.