For a later complaint to be admissible as an 'elaboration' of an initial complaint under s 34M(6) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), it must be positively demonstrated by evidence that the later complaint contained more detail than the earlier one; the fact that a complainee's evidence discloses more detail than the complainant recalls giving does not establish elaboration where the complainant's evidence is that the same level of detail was given on both occasions. Admissibility of a complaint as an elaboration is a question for the judge, not the jury. [name withheld] v The Queen does not relieve defence counsel of the obligation to put a positive assertion to a complainant in cross-examination where the defence intends to lead evidence on that topic.
The full text is available to signed-in members.