Bloomfield (a pseudonym) v The King

[2025] VSCA 98

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Evidence
4. › Cross-examination of complainant as to sexual activities
5. › Leave to cross-examine about prior complaints of sexual assault
6. › Whether evidence of prior complaints has substantial relevance to a fact in issue
7. › Whether necessary to establish falsity of prior complaints
8. › Similarities between prior complaints and present allegations permitting inferential reasoning
9. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 342, 346(2), 349
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Evidence
4. › Cross-examination of complainant as to sexual activities
5. › Interests of justice
6. › Balancing probative value against distress to complainant
7. › Right of accused to fully answer and defend the charge
8. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 349
1. Criminal Law
2. › Interlocutory appeal
3. › Certification under s 295(3)
4. › Whether refusal of leave to cross-examine is decision about admissibility of evidence
5. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 295(3)
1. Statutes
2. › Construction
3. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 349
4. › Whether 'substantial relevance to a fact in issue' includes evidence going only to credit
5. › Legislative history
6. › Removal of reference to cross-examination as to credit from predecessor provision

Quick Take

Where a complainant has made prior complaints of sexual assault with sufficiently similar features to the present allegations, an accused may obtain leave to cross-examine the complainant about those prior complaints to support inferential reasoning about the improbability of the events, without needing to establish the falsity of the prior complaints.