How has the defence in chief examination addressed the allegation that the complainant was not cross-examined on the allegation of tugging a piece of gum towards someone?

The complainant was clear about this event. It was not suggested to her that this event did not take place. It is open to me to accept the complainant’s unchallenged version of this sexual contact. Nevertheless, it is possible that counsel simply forgot to cover this specific allegation. Since the defence is consistent with a denial of all of the complainant’s testimony, I will assume they also wish to be consistent that this act was either consensual or did not happen. Once more, erring on the side of caution, I will not assume that this unchallenged sexual act took place simply because the complainant was not cross-examined on it. I note that the accused also did not address this point in chief examination. He was not asked by his counsel about it. Flicking Gum – Throwing Rocks There were implausible portions of the accused’s testimony that I think suffers in a credibility assessment, based on a failure to adhere to the Brown v. Dunn rule. For example, ‘flicking a piece of gum’ towards someone is a very different account versus the testimony of two separate witnesses that testified that the accused was in fact throwing rocks at that person. On this particular point, I do not find the accused credible. The eye witness’s account was clear that rocks were being thrown. Tugging