The case applies the M v The Queen and Pell v The Queen framework for unreasonable verdict appeals in the context of a very young child complainant (aged 3 years 9 months) giving unsworn evidence, confirming that inconsistencies in a child's account attributable to age, imprecision and exaggeration do not necessarily render the verdict unreasonable where the core allegation is consistently maintained. A sentence of 10 years (two-thirds of the standard non-parole period) with a non-parole period of 6 years was upheld for a mid-range s 66A offence involving digital penetration of a 3-year-old by a trusted carer.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.