The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against three convictions for acts of indecency without consent, holding that the Special Magistrate's acceptance of the complainant's evidence and rejection of the appellant's evidence were open on the whole of the evidence. The Court confirmed that a complainant's failure to immediately protest, resist, or report unwanted sexual contact does not undermine credibility, particularly where the complainant and accused were teenage friends and the accused was experiencing emotional distress. The Court also held that the Special Magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence based on its inconsistency with video evidence and the appellant's dishonesty about a non-essential but contextually significant matter (her emotional state), even where the dishonesty related to a matter not directly in issue for proof of the offences.
The full text is available to signed-in members.