Where the prosecution case on a sexual offence requires proof that a complainant's capacity to consent changed at a specific point in time, the prosecution must identify material observable indicia of that change; the absence of any observable difference between the complainant's presentation during consensual activity and the alleged offending period renders the verdict unreasonable. Mere filming of sexual activity is insufficient to establish complicity by encouragement or direction where the filming is a continuation of earlier consensual filming and the specific act captured appears incidental to uncontrolled camera movement. Serious prosecutorial misstatements of evidence in closing address do not necessarily cause a miscarriage of justice where the trial judge gives immediate and appropriate corrective directions.
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.