The case confirms that inconsistencies in a child complainant's evidence about details of sexual offending, the absence of physical injury on medical examination, the failure to call potential witnesses, and a confusing cross-examination answer do not individually or cumulatively render guilty verdicts unreasonable where the complainant gave clear and detailed evidence and the jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
12 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.