Conflicting evidence between a complainant and a corroborating witness about the existence of audio recordings does not necessarily undermine the complainant's credibility regarding the offences themselves, and the jury may place such evidence to one side and return to the balance of the evidence. A Robinson direction is not required where the forensic disadvantage arising from conflicting evidence and unavailable recordings is within the ordinary experience of the jury. The evolution of a complainant's account over successive interviews, suggesting improving memory, is not a unique feature of witness testimony requiring special direction.
The full text is available to signed-in members.