Db v R

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that split jury verdicts (acquittal on two counts, conviction on one) in a multi-count child sexual assault trial were reconcilable on the basis that the complainant's evidence regarding the most recent offence was qualitatively more reliable due to recency, the complainant's older age at the time, and greater specificity of detail, and that acquittals on other counts did not necessarily reflect an adverse credibility finding but rather a reliability distinction. The Court also held that defence counsel's tactical decision to consent to the reading of a witness statement — which contained both favourable and unfavourable material — was a sound professional judgment that did not constitute a material irregularity, and that the trial judge's summing-up directions on context evidence, the complainant's mental health, and the sister's evidence did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice.