Now how you can use the complaint evidence, I directed you already in relation to [the boyfriend's] evidence, you can use it to assess the credibility of the complainant. In relation to the complaint made to the mother, you can use the contents of the complaint as evidence in the case, that is, of what it says and I have read it out to you.
When considering this evidence, it is important to remember, just because a person says something on more than one occasion, that does not mean that what she says is truthful or accurate. A false or inaccurate statement does not become true and accurate by virtue of being repeated.
Second, you can use the complaint to assess her credibility. The fact that the complainant made the complaint and the content of that complaint may show that her account of the events in question has been consistent.
In this case the prosecution submitted that the fact that the complainant complained about the alleged incident at the time that she did makes it more likely that she is telling the truth. The defence dispute this, saying she did not complain at the time and if it had have occurred, she would have.
The defence also put to you as a possible reason for how this all came up, as demonstrated by the complaint to [her mother]. That is, having an argument and the mother makes a threat to send her off to her father who is a child abuser of the other daughter, the father of that daughter apparently abused the child sexually. In the course of anger and an argument, the mother - I normally tell my kids I will stop the car and you can get out and walk home - but this is a much more threatening thing to say to a child. 'I am going to send you off to your father who has already sexually abused your elder sister.'
The defence say in that context, she comes back at her mother by saying, 'Well look at the bloke you've just got rid of. He abused me.' Words to that effect.
So the defence put that up as a reason as to why all this has come about and once she has made the allegation in the general terms that she did to her mother, the police are brought in and she is locked into the story and cannot change it because she is locked into it. That is the defence submission to you.
Now the prosecution say there is no reason to worry about motive here, that she is a credible, honest and truthful witness and the reason why she is telling you these things is because it happened.
It is important to remember that if you reject the defence argument as to why this came up, that is not the same thing as accepting the complainant was telling the truth. All you are doing is eliminating one possible reason for rejecting the complainant's evidence. It is still possible that she is lying. For example, she may have a motive for lying the accused does not know about. Just because you have rejected one possible motive does not mean that there cannot be another.
Similarly, rejecting the motive suggested by the defence will not make the complainant's evidence any more credible. You must assess the complainant's credibility on the basis of her testimony and consideration of the other evidence in the case, not on the basis of whether the accused can tell you why she might be lying.
That goes back to the basic principle, the defence do not have to prove to you or even demonstrate to you or even suggest a motive. They do not have to do anything. The fact that they have done it does not mean that there is any onus on the defence to prove that.
So if you reject the motives suggested by the defence it does not make her evidence any more credible. You assess her credibility on the basis of her evidence and consideration of the other evidence in the case, not on the basis of whether the accused can you tell you why she might be lying, because it is for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant is telling the truth.
The accused is not required to prove his innocence and he is not required to prove that the complainant had a reason for making false allegations. You can only convict the accused of the charge you are considering, if on the basis of all the evidence, you are satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.