A child witness's failure to answer questions in cross-examination does not necessarily deny the accused a fair trial, particularly where the unanswered questions were subsequently answered when rephrased, were superfluous, or were based on false premises that did not take account of previous answers. The manner of cross-examination of child witnesses may itself contribute to unresponsiveness. Communications with a witness under cross-examination will not warrant discharge of the jury where the communication was not calculated to corrupt testimony and produced no perceptible change in the witness's presentation. The expression 'context evidence' in sexual assault cases properly refers to evidence of actual uncharged conduct that contextualises the charged allegations within the whole relationship, and should not be used to describe evidence admitted merely to explain the sequence of complaints.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.