The case confirms that inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence about peripheral details (such as school grade versus age, or the precise layout of a house) do not render guilty verdicts unreasonable where the core account of sexual offending remains consistent and unshaken. A jury's not guilty verdict on one charge does not preclude the sentencing judge from finding uncharged acts occurred for the purpose of providing context to the offending on other charges. A sentence of 6 years' imprisonment for incest where the offender does not have the benefit of a guilty plea or remorse is described as 'very lenient, rather than manifestly excessive' having regard to current sentencing practices.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.