The determination of an application under s 34L of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) to cross-examine a complainant about prior sexual activities is characterised by [name withheld] ([name withheld] agreeing) as a question of law about admissibility rather than a judicial discretion, which may affect the standard of appellate review. [name withheld] treated it as a discretionary ruling. Evidence of prior sexual activities of a complainant that is only marginally relevant to credibility, particularly where the complainant was a young child at the time and the evidence relates to events decades before trial, is unlikely to meet the threshold of substantial probative value or material impairment of confidence in reliability under s 34L(2).
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.