Verdict Unreasonable or Insupportable Having Regard to Evidence
Appeal Dismissed
Quick Take
1Expert evidence on the general unreliability of voice recognition does not render a verdict unreasonable where the complainant's identification rested on multiple bases (voice and body shape) and the jury received a proper identification warning addressing the relevant weaknesses.
2A complainant's statement that she 'realised' digital penetration had occurred after speaking with a friend does not constitute 'recovered memory' where the same conversation included evidence of penetration based on contemporaneous physical sensation, and the jury was entitled to accept that account.
3A consciousness of guilt direction referencing 'flight' is not prejudicial where the oral and written directions consistently used 'departure', identified the appellant's alternative explanations, and required the jury to exclude those explanations before drawing any adverse inference; a [name withheld]-type direction was unnecessary where the Crown had expressly relied on the evidence as consciousness of guilt.
