When assessing whether a verdict is unreasonable under s 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), the appellate court must consider implausible explanations given by a complainant for omissions in prior accounts both individually and cumulatively. A complainant's lies do not necessarily destroy credibility on all matters, but a rational jury must address why the lie was told, assess any explanation, and determine its impact on the critical evidence. The Pell assumption that the jury found the complainant credible does not require the appellate court to assume the jury believed every aspect of the complainant's account. Where cumulative implausible explanations demonstrate a willingness to mould evidence, and it is not possible to discount as a real and significant possibility that evidence of charged acts was exaggerated or embellished, the verdict may be unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.