Inconsistencies between a complainant's evidence and objective evidence (such as CCTV footage) regarding events peripheral to the charged conduct do not necessarily render the complainant's evidence on the vital aspects of the offence unreliable, particularly where the inconsistencies are explicable by intoxication and the nature of human memory, and where the complainant's account of the critical events is corroborated by complaint evidence and contemporaneous demeanour. The question of whether s 43 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) obliges cross-examining counsel to show a complainant CCTV footage before relying on inconsistencies to challenge reliability was left open.
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.