Vanessa Scammell

So why didn't the police properly investigate the husband's evidence when he was their only witness and they were relying on his evidence to lay charges and obtain a conviction?

On closer examination, it would have become painfully obvious that C2 and her husband had completely different stories and that contemporaneously he had never been told by his wife there had been an issue, let alone an assault.

Now let's go to Craig's evidence.

To summarise, in court, Craig's absolute denial of any form of assault on C2, as alleged, was unchallenged in cross-examination.

Craig's evidence that if a hug occurred, it was an unremarkable embrace consistent with his usual conduct was unchallenged in cross-examination.

There was no intended sexual connotation in any contact with C2 ever.

Craig's denial was unchallenged in Cross.

C2's claim of erection tumescence is false, surely visible to others if true.

Yet again, Craig's denial was unchallenged.

Her claim that he wore no underpants is baseless, impossible for her to make, and yet again this evidence was unchallenged in Cross.

Craig was, in fact, dressed for cold conditions and wearing multiple layers, including an athletic support and underwear beneath boxes.

This evidence was unchallenged.

Craig categorically denied that he gyrated or moved indecently against C2.

Again, this evidence was unchallenged.

Note well, there was no witness to this hug, even though the full cast, crew and stage management were present at the time of the alleged incident.

In summation, the bulk of Craig's evidence in relation to this charge and this complainant was unchallenged in cross-examination.

And again, I remind you what unchallenged evidence means.

In non-lawyer speak, failure to cross-examine essentially means that the cross-examining party, in this case the police prosecutor, accepts Craig's evidence as truth.

So what legal reasons could there be for such a lack of challenge in relation to Craig's evidence?

There are three that I would like to present.