|
Accused convicted of housebreaking and rape after court found complainant credible and consent absent.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Rape – Consent: absence of stereotypical resistance does not negate credibility; unpredictable human reactions and imperfect memory considered. Criminal law – Housebreaking: pushing a partially open door constitutes "breaking". Evidence – Credibility: assessment based on internal consistency, corroboration, demeanour, and inconsistencies; a single inconsistency does not necessarily destroy credibility. Evidence – Cross-examination: Browne v Dunn duty to confront witnesses with adverse inferences; failure to do so is material. Burden of proof: prosecution must prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt; court may prefer one witness over another after full evaluation.
|