Where a jury acquits on some counts and convicts on others in a multi-count sexual offence trial against a single complainant, the acquittals do not undermine the convictions where there is an obvious explanation for the acquittals other than doubts about the complainant's credibility — here, the jury's inability to be satisfied that the complainant was under 16 at the time of the later offending. Peripheral inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence of events 17 years earlier, including errors about physical details and confusion about timing, do not render guilty verdicts unreasonable where the jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and was squarely directed to the inconsistencies.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.