Where a child witness's account of what a complainant told them differs significantly from the complainant's own evidence, the jury may rationally reject the child witness's account if it bears hallmarks of editorialising, sensationalising and reconstruction, and the case is distinguishable from R v Thaiday where the dichotomy went to fundamental facts. The presence of corroborative evidence (here, the accused's subsequent partner's evidence of his clothesline fantasy) provides a strong basis for accepting the complainant's account.
The full text is available to signed-in members.