Where a complainant's account of sexual offending is inextricably linked to a specific location and the complainant adamantly rejects the possibility that the offending occurred elsewhere, unchallenged prosecution evidence negating the existence of that location during the relevant period may render a guilty verdict unreasonable. The jury cannot simply reject the location evidence while accepting the core account of offending beyond reasonable doubt where the location was pivotal to the opportunity to offend and played an active role in the offending as described.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.