Where a prosecutor has succeeded in opposing a defence application to cross-examine a complainant about sexual history under s 342 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), the prosecutor must not then advance submissions in closing that rely on characterisations of the complainant that the excluded evidence would have contradicted. A prosecutor who knows that excluded evidence contradicts the picture being painted in closing submissions acts unfairly and may occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice. The unreasonable verdict ground was rejected: inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence about peripheral details, including details of a car, the number of students present, and omissions in initial disclosures, do not individually or cumulatively compel a reasonable doubt where the jury has been properly directed under s 54D of the Jury Directions Act 2015.
The full text is available to signed-in members.