Under s 50(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), the jury must unanimously agree on the same two or more acts of sexual exploitation before convicting of persistent sexual exploitation of a child, distinguishing the South Australian provision from the Queensland equivalent which does not require such unanimity. Section 278(2a) removes the Hoch requirements that the trial judge exclude a reasonable explanation consistent with innocence and exclude evidence capable of explanation on the basis of concoction as preconditions to admissibility of similar fact evidence in sexual offence cases, leaving concoction to be determined solely by the jury. In multi-count trials involving multiple complainants, evidence of violence within a family setting is cross-admissible in relation to sexual charges as relationship and context evidence, not merely as similar fact evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.