The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applies to the jury's consideration of whether the elements of the offence have been proved by the evidence accepted by the jury, and is not strictly appropriate to the concepts of reliability and credibility of a witness's evidence. A trial judge is not required in every case where the prosecution depends on a complainant's evidence to direct the jury that they must be satisfied of the complainant's credibility 'beyond reasonable doubt'; the requirement for such a direction depends on the circumstances of the particular trial and summing up. The decision in R v HCM [2023] QCA 86 does not establish a general proposition to the contrary.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.