Neutral medical evidence (neither confirming nor refuting allegations of sexual penetration) is irrelevant to the assessment of a complainant's credit and does not render verdicts unsafe. Inconsistencies in preliminary complaint evidence go to weight, not admissibility, provided the evidence is unambiguously referable to the complainant's evidence. A complainant's account of an offender's conduct that is consistent with the offender's claimed medical conditions (such as impotence) does not render the verdicts unreasonable but may in fact support the complainant's credibility.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.