Where a child complainant provides specific and detailed evidence of sexual touching but also expresses the view that the touching may have been accidental, it is open to a jury to distinguish between the child's initial impression and the detailed account of the touching, treating the suggestion of accident as an attempt by the child to rationalise the offender's behaviour. The dissent of McMurdo JA highlights the competing view that where the complainant herself is in doubt about whether touching was deliberate, the jury cannot conclude otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. On the replaying of evidence, the fact that cross-examination is also replayed and the trial was of short duration may reduce the need for a balancing direction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.