In historical sex offence prosecutions relying solely on complainant evidence, fundamental inconsistencies between the complainant's police statement and trial evidence, improbabilities in the account (including medical evidence contradicting the alleged conduct), the absence of corroboration for the foundational circumstances of the offending, and forensic disadvantage from extreme delay (50+ years) may cumulatively render guilty verdicts unreasonable even where the jury had the advantage of observing the complainant under extensive cross-examination. The applicant's unblemished record over a long career is a matter of particular relevance where the alleged offending bespeaks the conduct of a practised offender. A complainant's demonstrated inability to distinguish nightmares from real memories undermines the reliability of all recollections, not merely the specific false memory identified.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.