The case illustrates that a trial judge's expressed reservations about the strength of a Crown case do not bind an appellate court conducting an independent assessment of the evidence under M v The Queen. Cultural and personal factors explaining a child complainant's reluctance to provide detailed accounts of sexual assault are relevant to the assessment of credibility and may explain apparent vagueness or inconsistency. A strong judicial direction to disregard prejudicial material inadvertently placed before the jury will ordinarily be sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly where defence counsel made a considered forensic decision not to apply for a discharge.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.