In a judge-alone historic sexual assault trial involving multiple complainants and allegations spanning several decades, the court acquitted on most counts but convicted on one count of indecent assault and one count of sexual assault.
The court held that count-to-count similar fact evidence was inadmissible because the proposed similarities were generic, one complainant's evidence was incapable of belief, and the overall probative value did not outweigh prejudice.
The abuse of process application was not pursued to a stay at the close of the case, and the court treated the investigative shortcomings as matters potentially bearing on reliability rather than as grounds for terminating the proceedings.
Applying orthodox principles of credibility, reliability, consent, and mens rea in historic sexual assault cases, the court found two complainants reliable on the central acts alleged and found the remaining allegations too uncertain to meet the criminal standard.
