A defence counsel's considered decision not to raise concoction with complainants in cross-examination, where the possibility was brought to counsel's attention and counsel chose instead to rely on contradictions from other witnesses, is a rational forensic decision that does not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. Errors by a Crown prosecutor in closing address referring to evidence the jury was directed to disregard are cured by clear corrective directions from the trial judge, particularly where defence counsel makes no application for discharge or further direction. An acquittal on a count of indecent assault where the complainant's evidence of the nature of the touching was vague is not inconsistent with a conviction on a count of digital penetration on the same occasion where the evidence was clear.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.