Section 34CB(1) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) abolishes only the narrow Longman warning based on forensic disadvantage attributable to the passage of time; it does not abolish the duty to give directions warranted by other circumstances or the power to comment on delay. A trial judge's endorsement of defence counsel's submission about scrutinising evidence may constitute an adequate judicial direction if given in the context of a summing up where the judge has directed the jury to accept his statements of law, though the dissent questions whether this carries sufficient judicial authority. The question of whether directions on forensic disadvantage from delay and directions on scrutinising the evidence of a sole witness should be gathered together in the summing up was left unresolved by the majority.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.