In an oath-on-oath child sexual offence case, an applicant's good character, post-offence encouragement to involve police, consistent denials, cooperation with forensic testing, and coherent account are matters that go only to the applicant's own credibility and do not directly undermine the complainant's evidence. Where the complainant's credibility is not challenged on appeal and the complainant's account is coherent and consistent, those matters do not, alone or in combination, render the verdict unreasonable. A significant change in the accused's version of events — from admitting accidental contact to denying any contact — is a matter the jury may view as highly damaging to credibility.
The full text is available to signed-in members.