R v Link

The case of R v Link involved the appellant who was convicted of indecent dealing with a child. The appellant contested the conviction, arguing that evidence of the complainant's distressed condition was improperly admitted as corroboration. The central issue was whether the complainant's condition, which was observed eight months after the alleged offence, was relevant and whether there was a causal connection between the condition and the offence. Additionally, the appellant questioned whether there was an alternative explanation for the complainant's condition.

The court examined the nature of the evidence presented, the timing of the observations, and whether there was a direct link between the complainant's condition and the alleged offence. The court found that the evidence of the complainant's condition was not admissible as corroboration due to the lack of a clear causal connection and the presence of a possible alternative explanation for the condition. The court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that evidence used for corroboration purposes meets stringent criteria, particularly in cases involving vulnerable complainants.

Consequently, the court determined that the evidence in question should not have been admitted as corroboration, leading to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand. The appeal against the conviction was allowed, and the court ordered a retrial. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, leaving the conviction intact but mandating a new trial to address the issues identified in the appeal.