Where a sexual offence prosecution depends on uncorroborated complainant evidence after long delay, the cumulative effect of contradictions in evidence as to the location of offending, inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and preliminary complaint evidence, implausibility in the physical circumstances described, prosecution failure to call material witnesses without explanation, and an unshaken sworn denial by the accused, may render a guilty verdict unreasonable even where the complainant's evidence, taken alone, appears credible and consistent. The case also confirms that the prosecution's failure to call material witnesses or explain their absence is a relevant factor in assessing whether a verdict is unreasonable, particularly where the dangers identified in a Longman direction remain unallayed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 23 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 23 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.