Inconsistencies in a child complainant's evidence on collateral matters (such as the circumstances of receiving money or descriptions of the accused's physical characteristics) do not render a verdict unreasonable where the complainant's evidence on the central allegations of sexual offending is credible, consistent and detailed. Unchallenged defence evidence on peripheral matters does not oblige a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to guilt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.