In cases of stale sexual complaints, the discretion under s 15 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to permit cross-examination of the accused as to previous convictions should be particularly sparingly and cautiously exercised, because the accused already faces inherent disadvantages from delay and the introduction of criminal history is likely to have a devastating and decisive impact. Putting a defence of false complaint — including directly suggesting the complainant is lying — is not a gratuitous imputation but an essential part of the defence, and should weigh against granting leave for cross-examination as to convictions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.