The presumption under s 9(1) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) that a person is capable of giving sworn evidence is not displaced by inconsistencies between a child witness's prior accounts and trial evidence; such inconsistencies do not ordinarily constitute good cause for an inquiry into the witness's understanding of the oath obligation. A trial judge sitting alone is not required to address every alleged inconsistency in a complainant's evidence, particularly where the complainant was not cross-examined on the inconsistency or where it relates to peripheral matters.
The full text is available to signed-in members.