This decision addresses the evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases involving child witnesses, focusing on the impact of cross-examination on the credibility and reliability of a young complainant.
The accused was charged with sexual offences against an eight-year-old child and breaching a court order prohibiting communication with children under 16 without permission.
The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly regarding whether the accused was seen in person or only via video chats, which undermined the reliability of the sexual offence allegations.
The complainant’s mother’s testimony was also found to be neither credible nor reliable, with concerns about possible coaching and financial motives.
However, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused breached the prohibition order by being in the complainant’s company and communicating with him, including via video chats, and convicted the accused on those counts while acquitting on the sexual offence charges.