Where a complainant's evidence of the conduct alleged in a charge particularised as the 'first occasion' is expressed entirely in generic or composite terms (using expressions such as 'would', 'used to', and describing what typically happened rather than any specific occasion), the conviction will be bad for uncertainty or latent duplicity because the 'first occasion' is notional rather than evidence-based. The case also confirms that significant discrepancies in a complainant's evidence about timing and surrounding circumstances in historical sexual offence cases do not necessarily render verdicts unsafe where the core account remains consistent.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.