This is what I hear… the jury have asked the Judge a question… if they are sure a complainant is telling the truth, must they find guilty, despite the passage of time & total lack of any supporting evidence?

The Judge's answer, it appears, and I must point out this is simply repeating someone's report to me, was that the prosecutor said - if the complainant gave accurate and truthful evidence then they should convict.

Not what the Judge said, what the prosecutor said. A helpful direction? Make up your own mind.

My answer, if I were a Judge (I make a fine one - or two - in Vile Pervert: The Musical) - would have been that jurors might be sure the complainant believes she is telling the truth but that she may be mistaken, without supporting evidence.

One person's word - against another's - can NEVER be "beyond reasonable doubt". There will always be doubt.

Why should a defendant be disadvantaged because the "complaintant" failed to make a complaint for 40 years ?

Is that fair, or reasonable ?

Yes; this is such a crucial point. If Justice in Great Britain still believes a person is innocent until and unless they are found guilty, and if the burden of evidence must be "beyond reasonable doubt", 95% of these cases should never be brought to court.

if they are sure a complainant is telling the truth, must they find guilty, despite the passage of time & total lack of any supporting evidence?

The Judge's answer.... - if the complainant gave accurate and truthful evidence then they should convict.

So 'should', but not 'must' (if the quote is accurate), would this be because of the right of the jury to 'nullification'?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.
and:
Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power.

So if the jury doesn't believe the case should have been brought (for whatever reason), they can acquit - even if they do believe the accuser(s) - but they are unlikely to have been told this???

Have I got that right?

And it seems perfectly impossible for anyone to understand - a person can genuinely believe they are telling the truth and you can be convinced they are being truthful when the reality is a far smaller incident - if one at all.

Memory memory… a slapped buttock can turn into rape with the passage of years, especially if it's a celebrity who slapped you.

My jury, after less than 4 days of trial, took 3 days to reach a verdict, and one juror walked out in disgust (bless you, Madam; an Asian lady who saw me when she was walking out and raised her eyes to the skies as if to say "they are all crazy in there; I refuse to be a part of it").

I suspect the trouble is - any juror with a brain cell and a sense of decency says "I refuse to be a part of this lunacy; this case should never have reached court; I understand that I ought to vote GUILTY because he probably did grope and leer and wink but it wasn't a crime then and times have changed and I will NOT send a man to jail for behaving in a stupid way decades ago".

But sadly insanity often conquers and the mad law may force GUILTY verdicts on some charges.

As I've said before, they ought to be tracking down girls or very young women who broke the law years ago trying to get votes for females and bung them in jail to die an elderly death.