R v J, Ap

[2013] SASCFC 121

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Child complainant
5. › Alleged inconsistencies in out-of-court statements and trial evidence
6. › Whether verdict unsafe
7. › Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 50(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Statutory provisions relating to evidence of children
4. › Warning as to reliability of child's uncorroborated evidence
5. › Whether cogent reasons existed to doubt reliability
6. › Whether warning required under s 12A
7. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA), ss 12A, 34CA
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Statutory provisions relating to evidence of children
4. › Statements admitted under s 34CA
5. › Relationship between ss 12A and 34CA of Evidence Act 1929 (SA)
6. › Whether statement admitted under s 34CA constitutes 'child's uncorroborated evidence' for purposes of s 12A

Quick Take

Peripheral inconsistencies in a young child's evidence given years after the events do not constitute cogent reasons warranting a s 12A warning under the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). The relationship between ss 12A and 34CA remains unresolved, but trial judges should treat statements admitted under s 34CA as if they were the child's evidence for s 12A purposes as a precautionary measure.

Case Details

Citation[2013] SASCFC 121

CourtSASCFC

JurisdictionSouth Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

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.

Cited by1

2018R v K, McSASCFC 133

Relies on1

2012Douglass v The QueenHCA 34
R v MattssonSASCFC 114

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in