In child sexual assault cases, a complainant's frequent use of the word 'would' in describing alleged conduct does not necessarily render the evidence merely a generalised assertion of pattern behaviour; the evidence must be read as a whole and in context to determine whether the witness was recounting a specific recollection of a particular occasion. However, where the evidence is predominantly expressed in habitual terms without clear indication of specific recollection, a conviction based on that evidence will be unreasonable. Where convictions are quashed on this basis, verdicts of acquittal rather than new trials are appropriate because the Crown should not be permitted to improve its case at a further trial absent special circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.