Peripheral inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence about details such as the sequence of events or who entered a location first do not render a jury verdict unreasonable; the jury is best placed to assess whether such inconsistencies derogate from the cogency of evidence as to critical events. Where a sentencing judge finds that an offender's youth and immaturity mitigate moral culpability, that finding must be adequately reflected in the sentence imposed. It is not possible to establish a reliable sentencing range for the repealed offence of carnal knowledge under s 67 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), but the absence of a demonstrable range does not preclude a finding of manifest excess.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.