Expert evidence that alleged conduct is 'consistent with grooming' is inadmissible where it assumes the truth of the conduct it purports to explain, creating impermissible circularity. The prosecution cannot hold back evidence of an accused's prior guilty pleas to lead in rebuttal if the defence challenges prosecution witnesses — such evidence must be led as part of the primary case or not at all. When assessing cross-admissibility of complainants' evidence, the trial judge must not treat the accused as bearing the burden of proving collusion or contamination; rather, the question is whether a reasonable possibility of collusion or contamination can be excluded.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.