Where a complainant's evidence-in-chief is given by recorded interview under s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and cross-examination is recorded under s 21AK, the appellate court is in as good a position as the jury to assess credibility, and minor inconsistencies between a complainant and a corroborating witness that are explicable by passage of time, reluctance to disclose drug use, differing levels of intoxication, and different vantage points do not render a guilty verdict unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members.