Where a jury acquits on some counts but convicts on others in a multi-count sexual assault trial, the acquittals do not render the convictions unreasonable where the differing verdicts are explicable by reference to specific evidentiary considerations extraneous to the complainant's general credibility. The proper construction of s 165B(5) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and its interaction with other sources of power to warn about forensic disadvantage from delay remains unresolved, though Basten JA suggested a purposive reading that would confine the saving clause to warnings about matters other than delay-related forensic disadvantage.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.