Where the Crown case on all counts depends on a single complainant's evidence, the jury's acquittal on one count, combined with inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts, evidence of lack of opportunity, and initial identification of a different location and possible different perpetrator, may render guilty verdicts on remaining counts unreasonable even after allowing for the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses. The case illustrates that the jury's demeanour advantage cannot resolve doubts arising from objective features of the evidence such as inconsistent prior statements and absence of corroboration for opportunity.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.