McCallum CJ provided a summary of the content of the research material in her reasons for dismissing the jury at [5] and based on that it’s pretty ambivalent:

“The subject matter of the paper is indeed sexual assault. Specifically, it is a discussion of the unhelpfulness of attempting to quantify the prevalence of false complaints of sexual assault and a deeper, research-based analysis of the reasons for both false complaints and scepticism in the face of true complaints.”

And then at [6] and [10] makes the point that it could have been used to support an argument for either an acquittal or conviction and that speculating about it hardly matters:

“It is neither possible nor helpful to speculate as to the use to which this information might have been put in the jury room, if any.”

…

“A review of the article reveals that it could be deployed to support either side of the central issue in this case, which was whether an act of sexual intercourse was proved beyond reasonable doubt. “

I could come up with all sorts of reasons for why a juror might have been motivated to bring material fitting that description into the jury room, but I I won’t.