Where complainants in child sexual assault cases fail to describe an established physical abnormality of the accused, this does not necessarily render guilty verdicts unreasonable. A trial judge is entitled to reconcile such inconsistencies by reasoning that a young child's perception and recall of physical details may be unreliable without undermining overall credibility, particularly where the trial judge has formed a favourable view of the complainant's honesty from observing their demeanour. Expert evidence of a physical abnormality does not constitute 'incontrovertible evidence' capable of displacing the trial judge's credibility findings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.