Section 34CB of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) does not require a judge in a trial by judge alone to give a Longman-type direction, but the judge's reasons must adequately deal with forensic disadvantage if delay is a material issue. Excessive judicial intervention in a judge-alone trial may vitiate a conviction on three grounds: disruption of a party's case, appearance of bias, or compromise of the judge's capacity for objective evaluation. Erroneous evidential rulings during a trial do not necessarily occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice if the overall fairness of the trial is maintained. Counsel may show an unidentified document to a witness and ask whether they adhere to their testimony; ss 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) prescribe conditions on calling contradictory testimony but do not prohibit the asking of questions in cross-examination about prior inconsistent statements.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.