A trial judge is not required to direct the jury about alternative explanations for a complainant's distress where no alternative explanation was raised in cross-examination or otherwise on the evidence, and the distress is relied upon only to bolster credibility rather than as corroboration. The question whether a direction excluding alternative causes is required when distress is used only for credibility (as opposed to corroboration) remains open in Western Australia.
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.