The M v The Queen test for unreasonable verdicts proceeds on the assumption that the complainant's evidence was assessed by the jury to be credible and reliable; the appellate court examines whether, notwithstanding that assessment, the jury acting rationally ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt. An applicant's exculpatory account in a police interview does not compel a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt where the complainant's evidence is clear, consistent and maintained under cross-examination. Following [name withheld], appellate courts should not generally view recorded evidence of witnesses.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.