For cogent reasons to exist under s 12A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) warranting a corroboration warning about child evidence, the reasons must be compelling, convincing and powerful; inconsistencies in a young child's evidence about peripheral matters do not of themselves amount to cogent reasons. A trial judge is precluded from giving a s 12A warning unless a party requests it, and the failure of defence counsel to make such a request, where the trial judge gave comprehensive directions on the inconsistencies, does not constitute a miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.