A complainant's mistake as to her age at the time of historical child sexual offending does not necessarily undermine the reliability of her evidence as to the identity of the offender, particularly where other aspects of her evidence closely connected to the offending (such as the offender's vehicle and circumstances leading to a hospital visit) are corroborated by independent evidence. Peripheral inconsistencies regarding details unconnected to the offending conduct (tattoos, furniture layout, pets, fish tanks) do not require a reasonable doubt as to the complainant's identification of the offender.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.