A context or narrative direction regarding evidence of a complainant's emotional state (as discussed in R v [name withheld]) is not required where the evidence cannot properly be categorised as evidence of distressed condition and the trial judge's directions clearly differentiate between complaint evidence and distressed condition evidence. CCTV footage showing apparently willing interaction between a complainant and accused does not compel a reasonable doubt where the jury has evidence of the complainant's intoxication, youth, and the accused's manipulative conduct providing context for the behaviour observed on the footage.
The full text is available to signed-in members.