12 A photocopy of A's undelivered letter was tendered on the trial. Apparently the original had been lost or misplaced within the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was evidence that the original had been folded into four, and that A had written "Dad" on the outside of the folded document. Mr Richardson cross-examined B in relation to two other letters on the voir dire before Evans J, but did not tender them at that time. He produced them again during the trial before me, again cross-examined B about them, and tendered them. B gave evidence that she had written one of them, which she had signed, but denied having written the other, which was incomplete, unsigned and crumpled. The completed letter was addressed "Dear family". In it, she had written that she was leaving home because the prisoner had been "sexually malestering [sic]" her. It had been folded into four, and she had written "Dear family" on the outside of the folded document. The incomplete document, which was addressed "Dear Family", said that the writer had left home "because dad has been sexually malestering [sic] me and I know he has done to [A] for quite some years". There was no reference to A in the completed document. The handwriting of the incomplete document looks very like B's writing in the completed document. It might very well be identical. However her mother gave evidence on the trial that the handwriting on the incomplete document was similar to B's handwriting but not quite the same. It was just after she gave that evidence that Mr Richardson tendered the incomplete document. I took the view that it was admissible because, although B had denied it was in her handwriting, it was open to the jury to conclude that she had in fact written it.