Where a complainant's evidence about a central factual matter (here, lack of sexual experience supporting the allegation that the accused caused her pregnancy) is contradicted by objective evidence including contemporaneous documents and unchallenged witness testimony, the discrepancy may be of such significance that the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the witness cannot resolve the doubt, rendering the verdict unreasonable. Minor inconsistencies in accounts of events occurring many years earlier do not, of themselves, warrant a finding that a verdict is unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.