Evidence of a second conversation about sexual offending, occurring years after an initial complaint, may be admissible as an elaboration of the initial complaint under s 34M(6) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), even where the complainant does not describe the specific additional details provided, provided there is evidence of a progression of disclosure. However, the majority's holding was influenced by the failure to object at trial. Peek J's dissent provides a detailed framework for assessing whether complaint evidence corresponds with the charged offence and the adequacy of directions on consistency of conduct, which may be influential in future cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.