Inconsistencies between a complainant's trial evidence and earlier statements (including a statement given as a child proximate to the events) do not necessarily render a guilty verdict unreasonable, particularly where the inconsistencies relate to peripheral detail rather than the charged conduct itself, and where the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. A trial judge's failure to expressly address the absence of complaint regarding one count in the concluding section of reasons does not constitute inadequate reasons where the issue was addressed elsewhere in the reasons. A judge's reasons regarding complaint evidence are not inadequate merely because they do not undertake a minute explanation of every step in the reasoning process regarding differences between complaint witnesses' accounts.
The full text is available to signed-in members.