Where a child complainant makes very similar allegations of sexual abuse against two different men, the possibility of conflation does not necessarily give rise to a reasonable doubt where the complainant consistently differentiates between the two men on a specific detail (here, the use of pornographic videos), the complainant is familiar with both men, and the trial judge has the advantage of observing the complainant give evidence. The similarity of allegations put to the complainant in cross-examination through leading questions carries less weight than if the complainant had volunteered substantially identical accounts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.