R v M, WJ

In the case of R v M, WJ, the appellant, WJ, appealed against his conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17, indecent assault, and attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17. The conviction arose from a trial by a judge sitting without a jury. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his handling of inconsistencies between the victim's testimony and her mother's account of complaints made by the victim. Specifically, the court examined whether the trial judge's failure to properly address these inconsistencies led to a miscarriage of justice and whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court found that the defence was indeed entitled to rely on the inconsistencies between the victim's trial testimony and her mother's account of the complaints to challenge the victim's credibility. However, the failure to put the inconsistency to the victim did not mean that it should be ignored. Instead, it was a factor to consider when assessing the weight of the inconsistencies. The trial judge erred in concluding that the mother's evidence could not be used as evidence of statements by the victim inconsistent with her trial testimony. Nevertheless, the court concluded that this error did not necessarily require the appeal to be allowed, as a miscarriage of justice must be demonstrated. The court further found that the inconsistency did not hold significant weight, as it was reasonable for the victim to focus on a single incident and for her mother to interpret it as such without further elaboration.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The reasoning was that while the trial judge made an error in his approach to assessing the credibility of the complainant, this error alone did not warrant a reversal of the verdict. The court held that the inconsistency, even if properly addressed, did not undermine the overall reliability of the victim's testimony and did not render the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the verdict remained secure, and the appeal was rejected.