Digital forensic evidence that does not positively establish a fact (e.g., absence of records on a seized device) does not contradict a complainant's evidence where the absence may be explained by the existence of other devices not subjected to forensic analysis. The prosecution is not required to prove which specific device was used to commit an offence where the evidence establishes the accused had access to multiple devices.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.