The case illustrates the application of the unreasonable verdict test in child sexual assault cases where the complainant's evidence contains inconsistencies and lacks corroboration. The absence of medical findings of injury does not necessarily undermine a complainant's reliability where the evidence does not assert complete penetration. A child complainant's evidence must be assessed in the context of the child's age and capacity to describe traumatic events, and ambiguities in language used by a five-year-old should be interpreted accordingly.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.