‘Your word against mine’ doesn’t wholly always apply.
If it did, then historical offences, the likes we’ve seen on Operation Yewtree could not be acted on.
many people with one word against another contribute to credible evidence.
The weight of circumstantial evidence adds to favourably to the defendant. So the fact that JMcG has already been proven guilty without doubt on the first offence, and also to have lied, goes against him on the second account.
Offence one can be used as part of the evidence on the second accusation as evidence greater than the ‘one word against another’.
The one word against another would have only worked in JMcG favour, on the first offence, had nobody else but JC heard it!
I’m no lawyer, but that is pretty much how it is. JMcG can appeal, but the likelihood without further evidence on his part, the penalty will be upheld.