The case applies the established unreasonable verdict test to a historic child sexual abuse prosecution dependent on the uncorroborated evidence of a single complainant. Delay in complaint, absence of corroborative evidence, and good character evidence do not render verdicts unreasonable where the jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the complainant give detailed, clear and largely consistent evidence, and where credible explanations for the delay were provided.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.