The case illustrates the application of the M v The Queen test in a sexual offence case where the complainant's credibility was significantly challenged on multiple fronts. The majority held that even where a complainant denies sending explicit photographs, gives an implausible explanation for delay in reporting, and gives ambiguous evidence about prior complaints, the jury's advantage in assessing credibility may resolve doubts that arise on the transcript. The dissent demonstrates that the same evidence can reasonably be assessed as crossing the threshold where the jury, acting rationally, ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt. The case also confirms that where a sentence accords with the range contended for by defence counsel, exceptional circumstances must be shown to succeed on a manifestly excessive ground.
The full text is available to signed-in members.