The mere tendering of JIRT interviews of a young child complainant does not, by reason of the child's age alone, imply a lack of prior sexual experience so as to engage the s 293(6) exception permitting cross-examination on sexual history; and a radical, unexplained change in a complainant's account of the nature of the sexual acts alleged — maintained consistently for nearly a decade — renders guilty verdicts on those counts unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.