Where a complainant with intellectual impairment first discloses alleged offending in circumstances where a trusted person has suggested the offending must have occurred, and the complainant's subsequent account is fragmented, internally inconsistent, and marked by significant memory gaps not attributable to the impairment, there is a real possibility that the account is the product of suggestion rather than true memory, which a reasonable jury could not rationally exclude. The court's independent assessment of evidence on an unreasonable verdict appeal extends to evaluating the realities of human experience including the fallibility and plasticity of memory, the possibility of contamination of recollection, and the influence of internal biases on memory, particularly where the complainant is a child with intellectual disability who is susceptible to suggestion from adults.
The full text is available to signed-in members.