Discrepancies and inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence in child sexual abuse cases, including the addition of penetration allegations in a later statement that were absent from the initial police interview, do not necessarily render guilty verdicts unreasonable where the jury could accept the complainant's explanation for the inconsistency and the evidence was otherwise substantially consistent and supported by other witnesses. A sentence of 10 years imprisonment for maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 involving a gross breach of trust by a paternal figure, offending commencing when the child was very young, and penetrative acts over an extended period, is within the sentencing discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members.