Where a complainant has expressly denied the occurrence of specific conduct on multiple occasions over an extended period, and subsequently 'recovers' a memory of that conduct, the resulting doubt about reliability is incapable of rational resolution by the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the witness, and the conviction must be set aside. However, doubts arising from the unreliability of evidence on specific counts do not necessarily infect convictions on other counts where the evidence is independently credible and the basis for doubt is count-specific. A prosecutor's improper suggestion that the accused has a 'motive to lie' or an uncharged tendency not supported by evidence may be cured by clear corrective judicial directions, though such conduct is strongly deprecated.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.