R v Uab

The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the jury's guilty verdict on a maintaining a sexual relationship with a child charge was not unreasonable, notwithstanding discrepancies in the complainant's evidence across four s 93A statements and two s 21AK pre-recordings. The Court held that apparent inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts regarding vaginal contact were attributable to her young age (four to six years old), her literal responses to questions, and the limited cross-examination on those topics, and did not undermine her overall credibility given her consistent evidence on the other particulars of offending. Applying R v ZT (2025) 281 CLR 137, the Court found it unnecessary to view the recorded evidence because no doubt about guilt arose from the transcripts alone.