The 'cogent reasons' threshold in s 12A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) for giving a child witness corroboration warning requires the reasons to be related to the child's juvenile immaturity, cognitive development, psychological immaturity, susceptibility to influence, or other youth-related circumstances. Inconsistencies or improbabilities unrelated to the child's developmental state do not engage s 12A, though they may warrant a discretionary comment by the trial judge. Out-of-court statements admitted under s 34CA are treated as the child's 'evidence' for s 12A purposes. The court expressed the obiter view that s 12A does not apply to trials by judge alone.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.