Ward (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 37

Facts: Defendant (D) was convicted of child sex offences. The complainant (C) was 6 or 7 years old. On appeal, D argues that C’s evidence was inconsistent with her video recording. Prosecution (Pr) countered by arguing it was not put to C that she had lied in her video recording, nor was it suggested to her that specific events did not take place. 

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now