Evidence by an accused which merely contradicts the prosecution case does not affect the degree of probative force required of the prosecution evidence to enable a jury to convict, and the fact that an appellant gave sworn evidence does not matter for the determination of an unreasonable verdict appeal. R v Oliver [2020] QCA 76, which suggested that sworn evidence 'reinforced' or 'fortified' a conclusion of unreasonableness, is doubted. Where a complainant has undergone psychotherapy involving relaxation techniques on a spectrum with hypnosis, the jury is entitled to assess the competing expert evidence and to accept the treating clinicians' evidence that the therapy did not alter or create memories.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.