Where a trial judge's path to conviction in a sexual offence case involves accepting part of a complainant's protestation evidence while rejecting other parts as exaggerated or incongruous, the consequences of that rejection for the assessment of the complainant's credibility must be explored and explained. Proven dishonesty by a complainant closely connected to the proceedings provides critical context against which all other discrepancies must be considered, and cannot be explained away merely because the dishonesty was readily admitted. The cumulative effect of multiple discrepancies — including inconsistencies regarding consensual acts, exaggerated protestation evidence, and fabrication of evidence — may render a conviction unreasonable even where the trial judge had the advantage of observing the complainant's demeanour.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.