Where the Crown case relies almost entirely on the evidence of a very young child complainant (three and a half years old), and that evidence contains significant inconsistencies, contradictions, admissions that the events may have been a dream, evidence of suggestibility, and is contradicted by other witnesses, the verdict may be unreasonable even making full allowance for the jury's advantages. The concession by the Crown that the jury was in no better position than the appellate court to assess the evidence was significant to the outcome.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.