The case confirms that cumulative errors by defence counsel demonstrating inexperience, including failure to capitalise on a complainant's lack of memory, eliciting hearsay evidence, misstating the law, and failing to object to prejudicial evidence, do not amount to flagrant incompetence warranting setting aside a conviction where the errors were individually and collectively insufficient to deprive the appellant of a significant possibility of acquittal.
The full text is available to signed-in members.