Where the Crown has invited the jury to follow a path of reasoning towards guilt which the trial judge has determined not to be permissible, explicit direction against such path of reasoning will often be necessary, and the introduction of concepts of 'thought' and 'belief' in directions confined to actual knowledge of absence of consent may give rise to a miscarriage of justice. Further, an appellate court is not required to find a rational explanation for acquittals other than doubts about the complainant's credibility before dismissing an inconsistent verdicts ground; materially stronger evidence on the counts of conviction may suffice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.