Section 34M(2) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) prohibits judges and counsel from commenting on delay in making a complaint of a sexual offence, but does not prohibit the jury from evaluating the probative significance of delay in assessing the complainant's credibility. A trial judge's direction that delay is 'not of any probative value' in the jury's assessment of the evidence is erroneous. The standard South Australian jury direction requiring caution before accepting the sworn evidence of an accused where prior inconsistent statements exist is also erroneous and should no longer be used; the existence of an inconsistency does not necessarily require caution, and it is for the jury to assess the significance of any inconsistency.
The full text is available to signed-in members.