Where a complainant with an intellectual disability gives evidence of repeated sexual offending over many years, a jury may legitimately convict on charges with distinctive features or markers while acquitting on others, even where the complainant's evidence is generally characterised by inconsistency and vagueness. However, where the complainant's evidence on a particular charge is internally contradictory as to the nature of the offending itself (not merely peripheral details), the distinctive feature of the circumstances may be insufficient to sustain the conviction. The case illustrates the division of opinion that can arise on the application of the M test where the quality of evidence varies across charges.
The full text is available to signed-in members.