由此 - 8 A A at that time I couldn’t even tell the difference between the two, so I told B C him I didn’t know” (AB 94, Line S to U). Miss X also testified that the applicant asked her what kind of car her father drove and the registration B C number of the car. She said she did tell the applicant “because at that D D time [she] thought that there were cars everywhere on the street, [the E F G applicant] wouldn’t be able to recognize. Even if he did, he wouldn’t really go up to talk to [her] father” (AB 95 Line C to E). 24. In our judgment, it is not inherently improbable for Miss X to E F G have acted as she did, particularly when the applicant introduced the topic H H of sexual matters to her and repeatedly asked her to give him a naked I J photograph of herself. It is not beyond the realm of reality that youngsters would do things with strangers via the internet that they would I J not have done if they were face-to-face with such strangers. K K 25. It is also not inherently improbable for a young girl aged 13 L L or 14 to be scared and feel intimidated when the very person to whom she M N had sent naked photographs threatened not only to publish those photographs, but also to send copies to her father, if she refused to meet M N with him, resulting in her meeting with and being sexually assaulted by O O that person. P P 26. Q R Although the learned judge did not set out the differences and/or inconsistencies drawn to the attention of Miss X during cross-examination in full in his Reasons for Verdict, the fact of the matter Q R is that Miss X has given her explanation as to why there were such S T differences or inconsistencies and the learned judge accepted her explanation. One must not lose sight of the fact that Miss X was relating S T U U V V