Where a child complainant's evidence-in-chief is given by video-recorded police interviews and the complainant makes concessions in cross-examination contradicting that evidence, the jury is entitled to prefer the prior recorded statements over the cross-examination concessions, having regard to the whole of the evidence including evidence of complaint and the circumstances of disclosure. A Crown Prosecutor's concession at trial that the jury might have a reasonable doubt on certain counts is not determinative before the jury or the appellate court. Where the complainant's evidence-in-chief substantially consists of video recordings and the significance of cross-examination concessions is in issue, it may be appropriate for the appellate court to view the video recordings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.