Court Evidence & Judicial Findings
Key quotes from official court records demonstrating the strength of exculpatory evidence and raising fundamental questions about whether the alleged incident occurred.
Supreme Court of Appeal
February 2017
"The records strongly suggested that offence could not have been committed on 3 February 2012 in the manner the complainant described"
"Moreover, if the alleged event did not occur on the evening of 3 February 2012, a further question arose as to the veracity of the diary entry said to have been made on the 4 February 2012"
"They had the potential to significantly undermine the complainant's evidence"
Retrial Judge
August 2017
"Now, it seems to me the real issue is the credibility of her evidence about how she recognised it was the accused. But given this other evidence that the [DPP] wishes to lead, it seems to me there is also an issue about whether the incident happened at all."
Significance of These Findings
Supreme Court of Appeal (February 2017)
The Appeals Court made three critical findings about the exculpatory evidence:
- Records strongly suggested the offense could not have occurred as described
- Questions arose about the veracity of the diary entry used as evidence
- Evidence had potential to significantly undermine the complainant's testimony
Retrial Judge (August 2017)
The retrial judge's statement is particularly significant as it moves beyond questions of credibility to address a fundamental question: "whether the incident happened at all." This represents a recognition that the exculpatory evidence raised doubts about the very occurrence of the alleged event.
The Jury's Response
When presented with this complete evidence at retrial, the jury deliberated for approximately 30 minutes before returning a NOT GUILTY verdict. This rapid deliberation demonstrates how clear and compelling the exculpatory evidence was when properly presented to the fact-finders.