Consideration
48As I have mentioned above the applicant submitted that the complainant had "lied" in two significant respects. The first related to seeing the applicant's son with cream on his bottom and related events and the second was the evidence that the applicant had at one point lived next door to them.
49The complainant was 7 years old when she took part in the video recording and 8 years old when cross-examined at the trial. Some aspects of the complainant's account of the relevant circumstances were confirmed by other evidence. The applicant's son had in fact died in a car accident when aged 26. The complainant said that the applicant had told her this. The jury also heard evidence (not from the complainant) that the complainant had once met a boy who was 17 at the time of the trial at the applicant's house.
50Under cross-examination at the first trial the complainant said that she could not remember saying that she saw the applicant's son with cream on his bottom but insisted that she did meet a boy at the applicant's home. She then said that she did not know whether the boy she met was the applicant's son. She thought the boy was older than her. When asked whether she made up the allegation that the applicant had put cream on his penis and squirted it onto the boy she said that the applicant had squirted it onto her. When confronted with the detail of the allegation she had made in the video recorded interview she agreed that she had made up the story about the boy and that it was not the truth.
51At the very least it is plain the answers which the complainant gave in response to questions about these matters were confused. Having regard to all of her evidence in some respects they were not correct. It must be remembered however that by the time this issue was raised the complainant had been answering questions for in excess of 2 hours.
52The difficulties with respect to the complainant's account of these peripheral events is not reflected in the evidence which she gave about the primary allegations. A reading of her evidence in relation to those allegations gives an impression quite different to her account of seeing the applicant with the young male person. Although she was tested in relation to her account of primary matters she did not waiver and the cross examiner was not able to obtain any concession or suggestion she had fabricated any of this evidence. Furthermore, the evidence she gave about these matters was consistent with her video interview. The applicant correctly identifies that in her video interview the complainant said that the applicant had at one point lived next door to her home and had subsequently moved from no. 5 to no. 7 in the street. She conceded that this evidence was not correct after she realised that she could not remember anything about the applicant being at no. 5. At this point when she was asked whether the applicant had actually lived at no. 5 she said "she didn't know." She then agreed with the suggestion that the applicant had never lived at no. 5.
53The transcript of the trial confirms that these matters were emphasised by both defence counsel and by the trial judge in the course of giving directions to the jury. The jury was directed by the judge to scrutinise the complainant's evidence very carefully. That instruction was repeated on a number of occasions during the summing up. It is necessary to both Ground 1 and Ground 2 of the appeal to consider the directions which the trial judge gave to the jury including his discussion of the asserted lack of credibility of the complainant by reason of her concession that some of her evidence was not correct. I have set out relevant portions of the directions below:
"An important part of your responsibility as judges of the facts is the assessment of the reliability of the evidence given in the trial. There is, if you like, a central or crucial witness in the case and that is the complainant. The complainant is the only person, the Crown says, who was a witness to these alleged sexual assaults and so the Crown case rests very, very heavily indeed on the evidence of the complainant and, thus, her reliability as a witness is a central feature of this case and of your consideration of the evidence in the case. That is not only because she was the only witness to these alleged assaults, but also because the obligation is on the prosecution to prove the charge and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, there being no onus on the accused to prove anything. He is not obliged to prove anything. So both of those are very powerful considerations for why you would need to give very careful scrutiny to the evidence of the complainant.
But what I want to say is not only referable to the complainant, these are observations which are relevant to your consideration of all of the evidence in the case. As I said, you have to decide whether the evidence is reliable evidence, whether you can safely act upon it and, before you could do that, you need to be satisfied that a piece of evidence you are considering is both honest and accurate. I say a piece of evidence because there is no rule that says you have to accept all of a witness' evidence or reject all of it. You are entitled to accept parts of a witness' evidence but to reject other parts of it. Equally you are also entitled to accept the whole of the witness' evidence or reject the whole of the witness' evidence.
But, in this case for example, the Crown submits that you would accept the evidence of the complainant, even though, on her own admission in the cross-examination in the previous trial, she admitted making up the material in the video taped interview about the accused moving from number 5 to number 7 in the course of his living in the street in which she was living. You know from other evidence that that move did not take place and that is not challenged. The Crown accepts, as I understand it, that that assertion was not correct and the complainant, ultimately, in her cross-examination conceded that she had made up that assertion and also, and perhaps more significantly, that she had made up the description of an incident involving a boy, initially or at least in part described as the accused's son and I will not go into the detail of it, but you might think, when you heard the description, she was giving quite a detailed description of an event which she claimed to have observed. Initially, in cross-examination she maintained that she had seen these things and then, ultimately, conceded that she had made up the story about the boy and that she did not know why she had made it up.
That issue of course raises, you might think, a very important, perhaps even crucial, point about the reliability of the complainant's evidence. After all, if she had made up that description, you have to very seriously consider whether she had made up other descriptions of events, including, most importantly, descriptions of events which are the foundation of the charges before you. If her evidence in relation to the incident with the boy is unreliable because it was made up, then, as I have said, obviously that is an important consideration for you as the judges of the facts in weighing up the reliability of the complainant's evidence generally.
But there is no rule that says, if a witness is unreliable in one respect, even dishonestly unreliable in one respect, that that witness' evidence cannot be accepted in other respects, but common sense obviously dictates, that when that situation arises, you are more careful and more likely to give much greater scrutiny to that witness' evidence to see whether it is reliable evidence in other respects and, particularly, in those respects which bear directly on the allegations which lie at the heart of each of the charges before you and where that witness is the only witness to those events.
So the first question you have to consider with a piece of evidence is whether it is honestly given, whether the person who is giving that evidence is doing his or her best to tell the truth about that issue or is trying to deceive you or mislead you or conceal from you the real truth of the matter.
The second question you have to ask is, even if that witness is doing his or her best to tell the truth about that matter, is this witness accurately giving an account of an event or accurately recalling an event at all. In that respect, you have to ask yourselves whether that witness is a person who has given inconsistent accounts of events, whether that witness' evidence seems to hold together and be a logical and coherent version of events, are there aspects of it that do not make sense, are not compatible with other evidence that has been given by that witness, and then you go through a similar exercise comparing that witness' evidence with other evidence in the case. Those tests are, I suppose, rules of thumb and they are not in any way precise or accurate measurements of a person's accuracy.
Similar considerations also apply to weighing up the honesty of a witness' evidence. You ask, does what this person say make sense, does it seem to fit into the overall scheme of things in the case, is it consistent, does the witness give the same account each time or is it changed on occasions, things added to it or taken from that account as the case progresses through various stages, is the witness saying one thing in evidence in chief and another thing in cross-examination? So you look for those questions, consistency and inconsistency, and as I said, there is an overlap between the considerations which you look at when you are considering honesty and when you are considering accuracy. Although they are different concepts, the same considerations and same rules of thumb often assist you from one to the other.
In the end, of course, it is a matter for you as the sole judges of the facts what facts you find. What I have said to you is simply intended to give you a few ideas that might help you in weighing up that evidence but what you make of the evidence, of its reliability, of the honesty and accuracy of a piece of evidence in the case, is a matter for you and entirely a matter for you as the sole judges of the facts in this case.
It is, of course, as I said, open to you to accept the whole of a witness' evidence or reject the whole of a witness' evidence or choose parts of it to accept and not accept other parts of it. Provided, whichever one of those things you do, you do so rationally and carefully and after a logical and careful examination of the evidence, then they are options which you, as the jury, have.
It is also, of course, important to bear in mind when you are considering the reliability of evidence, that witnesses can be quite honest but mistaken about matters and that is why it is necessary to look at both aspects of reliability. If a witness is being dishonest then that will, no doubt, raise quite a serious question mark, not only about the point on which they have given evidence which you think is dishonest, but also in relation to other aspects of their evidence. Similarly, if a witness is mistaken about some aspects or not accurate, then that may cause you to want to look very much more carefully at other aspects of their evidence to see just how accurate and, therefore, reliable that evidence is. These are all matters which are entrusted to you as the sole judges of the facts in this case.
As I have indicated to you, in this case, there is one witness who is essential to the proof of the Crown case in respect of each of the charges and that is the complainant CW. You should examine and scrutinise her evidence with great care before you decide whether you accept the evidence of that witness.
Since it is for the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence given by that witness is the only evidence relating to an essential matter which the Crown must prove on these charges, then it follows that you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you should accept the evidence of that witness, CW, otherwise the accused must be found not guilty.
As I have already indicated to you, you will be concerned to assess not only what that witness says, but also her honesty and reliability as a witness. I will deal in due course with the evidence and submissions which are said to bear upon that issue.
On the other hand, the case for the accused is that you would not accept the evidence of CW as being that of an honest and reliable witness and, therefore, that you would have at least a reasonable doubt about acting on her evidence. Again I must emphasise that it is for the prosecution to establish that this witness, CW, is honest and reliable in giving evidence which is supportive of the Crown case. It is not for the accused to show that she was either dishonest or unreliable. By that I mean there is no obligation on the accused to show that she was either dishonest or that she was unreliable.
I want to say something at this stage about the evidence of the complainant. As you know, at the time these alleged offences took place, she was six or seven years of age. She turned seven in late March, just a few weeks before the discussion with her parents and the involvement of the police, leading to the interview on 12 May 2004. So, at the time she was interviewed, the age was within six or seven months or so of the beginning of the period of time it is alleged these incidents took place.
You had the opportunity, as I have said a moment ago, of observing her as she was being interviewed and making some assessment of her age and maturity at that time. You are also aware, as I have mentioned to you during the trial, that the evidence in the previous hearing was given in early June 2005, so it is two years ago but, at that stage, she was only just a couple of months over turning eight.
I need to direct you, therefore, that the evidence of the complainant may be unreliable due to her age. He age at the time of the alleged incidents but also at the time when she was recounting those events, when she was talking about them to the police and to the earlier court hearing.
I further warn you of the need for caution in determining whether to accept the evidence of the complainant and the weight to be given to it. That direction is a direction which I must give you but I stress that it is for you to weigh up that direction and to consider its applicability in relation to your assessment of the reliability of the complainant in this case. You must take account of that direction and give it due weight but, in the end, it is a matter for you to assess for yourself whether you are satisfied that, irrespective of her age or despite her age, the complainant is reliable. That choice, that decision, is ultimately one that you must make in the responsible exercise of your functions as the sole judges of the facts.
Similarly, as you are aware, in relation to each of the charges the only witness the Crown has brought in relation to the specific charge, the specific incident, giving rise to a charge in each instance, is the complainant herself. I must direct you that, in a case such as this, where one witness alone is asserting the commission of a crime, evidence of that witness must be scrutinised with great care. You give very careful consideration to the evidence of the complainant because, in the end, proof of the Crown case beyond reasonable doubt depends upon the reliability of the complainant's evidence and a satisfaction on your part that, in relation to a particular charge, you are able to reach a state of being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant's assertions about that particular incident, in relation to the elements of the offence, constitute a reliable account of those events.
By that I mean it may be that you conclude that the complainant has given accounts of events which are very difficult to explain, such as her somewhat detailed description of events concerning the boy or the son of the accused which she conceded, ultimately in her cross-examination in June 2005, to have been made up. Also, for example, her concession, at the same time, that the assertion that the accused had, initially lived in [one place] and then had moved to [another place in the same street] was also something which she had made up. Those, you may think, are quite substantial matters particularly the lengthy description of events relating to the boy. Those are matter which you would in any event, as common sense would suggest, very carefully consider when weighing up the reliability of the complainant. Notwithstanding those matters, you are nonetheless entitled, as the sole judges of the facts, to conclude that the complainant is not a reliable or trustworthy witness on those matters but you accept the central allegations that she makes about each of the alleged offences. It is a matter for you whether you reach that conclusion or whether you conclude that those are matters so fundamental to her reliability that you could not accept her reliability on other issues. These are important tasks for you to perform in this case because the complainant's account of these events is crucial to the Crown case. If you cannot accept her on the central events relating to a charge, that is the allegation of an indecent assault or the sexual intercourse or an attempt, if you cannot accept her in relation to those central issues about each incident, then the Crown case has no other means by which you could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused on that charge. For those reasons you must scrutinise the evidence of the complainant with very great care.
Even leaving aside those two matters that I have identified (as to which the complainant conceded that she'd made them up) there are a whole host of other matters which have been raised in relation to the accounts given by the complainant, some of which I will deal with later. The Crown submits in essence, that all of these are really peripheral matters, they are not matters that should detract, ultimately, in the final analysis, from acceptance of the complainant as being a reliable witness.
The accused, on the other hand, submits that these matters, even if they appear in some respects to be peripheral and not central to the main issue in the trial, are none the less important indicators of what the accused submits is a significant range of areas of unreliability in the complainant's account of these events. A measure of unreliability so substantial that it undermines the whole reliability of the complainant's evidence. Now it is a matter for you how you weigh up those competing submission about the evidence of the complainant. My task is to direct you to scrutinise the evidence of the complainant with great care to ensure that it is reliable and to ensure that you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to her reliability on the elements of these offences before you could find the accused guilty. If, after carrying out that very careful scrutiny of her evidence, you conclude that you can set aside those criticisms, that either they are not made out or they are not ultimately material to your consideration of the complainant's reliability, then you are entitled to find the complainant is a reliable witness and one whose account you can rely on in respect of the particular charge you are considering. It is a matter for you, ultimately, what conclusion you reach. My direction is that you must scrutinise the complainant's evidence with great care because it is crucial to the Crown case.
I direct you that it would be dangerous to find the accused guilty on the complainant's evidence alone. Nevertheless I direct you that, if you are satisfied as to its truth and accuracy, you are nevertheless entitled to act upon that evidence alone and reach a conclusion that you accept the complainant's evidence as being reliable, both true and accurate, and thus a foundation upon which to find the accused guilty.
As I have already indicated, I direct you that you cannot be so satisfied, without having first scrutinised the evidence with great care. I direct you that the carrying out of that scrutiny must take into account, carefully, any circumstances which are peculiar to this case which have a logical bearing upon the truth and accuracy of the complainant's evidence.
In particular, you are entitled to take into account, as part of the mix of circumstances, both the age and maturity of the complainant. You are also entitled to take into account, must take into account, the areas in which she conceded that she had made up evidence, or allegations, concerning the conduct of the accused or whereabouts he had lived. Also, the various matters which I will come to relating to the alleged inaccuracy or unreliability of the complainant as a witness.
I direct you that, at every stage of carrying out that scrutiny of the complainant's evidence, you must take serious account of the warning that I have given you that it is dangerous to act upon the evidence of the child alone to find the accused guilty.
This is the case where there is no evidence tending to confirm the complainant's account as to central element of any of these offences. There is some material upon which the Crown relies, for example, the image found on a search of the accused's computer equipment, which provides some support for the description of the event given by the complainant but there is no evidence which directly tends to confirm her account as to the essential ingredients of any of these charges.
As I have emphasised, this is a case where the sole witness in support of the Crown case is the complainant and so have directed you to consider her evidence with great care.
As I have already reminded you, there is a need for careful consideration in relation to that account about the boy and the cream. It is obviously a matter which is very important in terms of your assessment of the complainant. It is a matter which you have to consider very carefully, but I remind you that there is no rule that a witness, even a child witness, who has admitted making up a story on one occasion - or on this occasion, two occasions - must, as a consequence, be held unreliable when giving evidence about another matter. You are entitled to use the impression you received of the complainant from all her evidence in weighing up this particular piece of the evidence, not only what she has said on those previous occasions but, to the extent that you can, the way in which she said it, and her appearance as she said it, at least in relation to the videotape
54With respect to the evidence of Dr Brennan, it is important to understand the evidence which the complainant gave. She said that she knew that the applicant had placed his penis into her vagina because she could not see the "testicle." However, it became clear that by the "testicle" she meant the top of the applicant's penis.
55When cross-examined the complainant said that when the applicant was putting his penis inside her vagina it was "really hurting" and she told him to stop. She said he did this. She said that whenever she told the applicant to stop he did as he was asked.
56Dr Brennan gave evidence that the hymen in a girl of the complaint's age was very sensitive to pain and if torn is particularly painful.
57It is apparent that Dr Brennan gave her evidence with the understanding that the complainant inserted his erect adult penis fully into the complainant's vagina. With this understanding the doctor said:
"The passage of an erect adult penis into the - fully into the vagina of a 7 year old female under normal circumstances would produce dilatation of the introitus where the entrance is, markedly a greater diameter than the diameter. The diameter of the penis would be a markedly greater diameter than the diameter of the vaginal opening and I would expect under normal circumstances there to be some significant injury such as a transection in the hymen."
58From this evidence it is apparent that it was open to the jury to have concluded that in the absence of observed injury the complainant may not have been giving an accurate account. However, this assumes that there was full penetration of the complainant's vagina. The evidence which she gave does not indicate that this occurred. Rather it would seem that the evidence was that the end of the applicant's penis was inserted into the complainant's vagina. This would not have had the physical consequences to which the doctor referred.
59It is important to appreciate that both Dr Brennan and Dr Johnson gave similar evidence in relation to the fact that young girls are commonly confused about physical aspects of the vagina. Apparently they will often refer to their vagina when they are actually referring generally to their external genitalia. I am satisfied that this confusion was present in the complainant's evidence.
60For these reasons I do not believe that the evidence of Dr Brennan has particular significance in this case. Certainly the jury were entitled to put it to one side as not relating to the events of which the complainant gave evidence. My own assessment is that the evidence was not relevant to understanding whether or not the complainant was giving an accurate account of the events.
61The complainant did not initially tell anyone of what she later alleged the applicant had done to her. She said that she was afraid that the applicant would get into trouble and that she still thought he was a good man. She said that the reason that she told her sister was that the applicant kept doing things to her and she did not want it to continue to happen. She reported, as is common in these cases, that she had been told by the applicant to keep their activities a secret. She also said, which is not uncommon, that she did not have the strength to tell her mother and also thought that she may herself get into trouble.
62To my mind it is important to appreciate that the complainant was of a young age when the alleged offences occurred and when she was interviewed and gave evidence. The offences allegedly occurred over a period of months. I am satisfied that it was open to the jury to regard the various discrepancies and contradictions as peripheral and not displacing the credibility of the complainant's evidence with respect to the central allegations.
63The complainant knew the layout of the applicant's bedroom and that the applicant had one picture on the wall in his bedroom but believed it was a photo of two people dancing. By the time of the trial in 2005, she was unable to recall any further details about it.
64The complainant gave evidence that sometimes the applicant would change the blankets on the bed because they were dirty. The complainant said that she once saw dirty footprints on the carpet and four coffee spots on the bed. She said that she did not see anyone spill coffee on the bed but that she could tell it was coffee because it smelt like it. It was not in issue that during the period in question renovations were taking place at the premises and the applicant often worked in his garden. Although the applicant's wife gave evidence that neither she or the applicant drank coffee, there was evidence that there was coffee in the house.
65In respect to count 4, the applicant relies upon evidence given by the complainant at the trial to the effect that there was a door handle on the front door. The applicant gave evidence that there was no handle on the front door and it could only be opened by a key. However in her earlier recorded interview, the complainant gave evidence that she knocked on the door and was let in by the applicant. It was not in issue that the complainant had been to the applicant's on more than one occasion. The fact that 12 months after the complainant gave her video interview, she believed there was a door handle on the front door is not a matter that would to my mind adversely affect her credit.
66The evidence of whether persons walking on the path at the rear of the applicant's home would be able to see persons on the lounge in the loungeroom (where some of the offences were allegedly committed) was speculative and far from clear. The jury had exhibit F (a plan of the applicant's home); exhibit H (photos of the loungeroom); exhibit 2 (aerial photo of the applicant's home); exhibit 21 (real estate advertisement with photos of the appellant's home); and exhibits 28 & 29 (photos of the rear of the appellant's home) to assist them. The evidence given about this issue was accurately summarised by the Crown in the following terms:
From the path one could not quite see the swimming pool because the applicant had big garden trees in his backyard. Whether you could see the loungeroom behind the swimming pool would probably depend on the light;
There were plants along the fence and whilst you could see a large window where the internal swimming pool was, one could not see the pool because it was glazed glass;
From the path at the rear of the applicant's home, one would have to look through a glass wall containing an internal swimming pool to see the living room and spiral staircase;
There was evidence that the swimming pool was heated;
There were also a number of trees in the backyard;
If someone was walking along the track one could see them from the loungeroom but not very well;
The acquaintances of the applicant would say hello to him from the path when he was outside in his garden, (not inside his loungeroom).
67The applicant submitted that there was significance in the failure of the Crown to call evidence from an appropriately qualified expert to support the complainant's assertion that on one occasion the applicant had discharged semen onto the lounge and wiped it off with a towel. Evidence was led to the effect that tests were conducted to establish if there was semen on the lounge in the loungeroom. Forensic officers conducted an indicative test which was negative. The fact that the test was negative is not to my mind surprising. The test was conducted well after the event when the lounge may well have been cleaned and certainly used. The lack of any confirmed DNA is to my mind entirely neutral.
68A similar response is to my mind appropriate in the present appeal.
69Other aspects of the evidence relied upon by the applicant are the failure of the complainant to refer to the applicant's denture plate, which he claimed he had to remove if he were to perform licking or sucking actions, and the fact that he had a mole or mark on his penis. However, there was no suggestion that the applicant could not quickly remove his plate before undertaking those particular actions or that it was necessarily something that the complainant saw. The complainant was not questioned about whether she was aware that the appellant had a dental plate.
70The appellant's wife described the mark on the appellant's penis as a "small brown mark." Whether a 6 or 7 year old child would consider a mark on a penis, (assuming she noticed it) to be something of significance, or which, if she saw it, she would remember may be doubted.
71At the trial, the applicant objected to the admissibility of the evidence of the complainant saying that she had seen a pornographic image of a child on the applicant's computer on the basis that it was unfairly prejudicial. His Honour ruled the evidence admissible. There is no challenge to this ruling. In accordance with the ruling, the Crown led evidence from the complainant that the applicant showed her a picture on his computer of a naked girl aged about 10 years old with her pants off and her "legs split." When he showed her this picture he said, "That looks very nice." The Crown also led evidence from Senior Constable Kearns that an image of an apparently ten year old girl naked with her legs apart was found on the applicant's hard drive.
72The judge gave specific directions to the jury in respect to this evidence. No objection was taken to these directions. His Honour told the jury that "... if she was shown such an image by the accused, that is a fairly significant piece of evidence and one which lends some support to her description of the general activity on that day, though not lending direct support to the proposition that the accused committed an indecent assault on her that day" (emphasis added). I am of the same view. The jury were entitled to reason that the complainant would only give evidence of this event if it had truly happened.
73As I have previously indicated the applicant gave evidence at his trial. He said that he had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and panic attacks and was an alcoholic. He denied sexually abusing the complainant. He also denied that there was an image on his computer of a girl around 10 years old naked with her legs apart. He claimed that he had never seen such an image. When cross-examined he was taken to the evidence that he had given at the previous trial where he had agreed that he had seen such an image and that it was on his computer. The applicant said that he could not recall giving that evidence and if he did that evidence was wrong. He also said that the evidence he gave at his previous trial to the effect that his wife went shopping by herself, maybe once a month was also not correct. At his second trial he said that his wife never went shopping by herself.
74The applicant also denied that the complainant was a regular visitor to his house or that she would help him with the gardening or that she would watch TV or DVDs in his presence. When reminded of the evidence he gave at the previous trial that the applicant used to visit consistently at one time and would sometimes sit down and watch MASH on TV the applicant said he did not recall the evidence but if he did say those things he must have been mistaken.
75A reading of the applicant's evidence leaves me in no doubt that he could not be accepted as a witness of truth. This of course does not mean that for that reason he should be found to have committed the offences with which he was charged. However, his evidence is so lacking in credibility that little weight could be placed in his denial of the alleged sexual acts.
76The applicant's wife gave evidence which supported the complainant's account of her frequency of visits to their home. She said that the complainant would pop in whenever she liked and "take over the place." She said that she believed that the complainant had developed a crush on the applicant and if she and the applicant showed any affection towards each other the complainant would try and get between them. During 2003 and 2004 the complainant used to visit the applicant a couple of times a week, both after school and on the weekends. There was other evidence that supported a frequency of visitation by the complainant to the applicant's home.
77I have carefully considered all of the evidence and in particular the criticisms which the applicant makes of the complainant's evidence. The jury had the advantage of seeing the audio visual recording of the complainant's interview and listening to the audio recording of her evidence. It is true that in some respects the complainant's evidence was unreliable and she conceded that in relation to those matters she had not told the truth. However, there is a clarity and directness about her evidence as to the central allegations which to my mind confirms that in relation to these matters she was telling the truth. As the directions given by the trial judge which I have included above indicate the jury were carefully and appropriately instructed as to how they were to evaluate the complainant's evidence and in particular that they must be satisfied of its veracity beyond reasonable doubt before they could convict the application. Having regard to these matters to my mind it was open to the jury to convict the applicant and I am myself satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the relevant offences.