Complaint evidence that is admissible as capable of buttressing a complainant's credibility cannot simultaneously be treated solely as a prior inconsistent statement capable only of undermining credibility. There is no general requirement to warn a jury to take special care before acting on a complainant's evidence if they find the complainant had a motive to lie. Whether a direction on alternative causes of changed behaviour is required when the evidence is used only to buttress credibility (rather than as corroboration) was expressly left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.