Adamson (a pseudonym) v The King

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. The prosecution alleged that between 1999 and 2003, the appellant engaged in numerous unlawful sexual acts with the complainant, SB, who was between 10 and 12 years of age at the time. The appellant's relationship with SB's mother, LK, ended when SB was approximately 12 years old. The appellant had been tried twice previously before a jury, with neither trial resulting in a verdict. The third trial proceeded before a judge alone, who convicted the appellant based on the evidence of SB, which was admitted via an audio-visual record from the second trial.

The appeal raised two grounds. The first ground challenged the trial judge's directions regarding the use of evidence of domestic violence perpetrated by the appellant against SB's mother, arguing that the judge failed to adequately explain the purposes for which this evidence could not be used, contrary to section 34R(1) of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). The second ground contended that the trial judge misdirected himself as to the permissible use of evidence concerning sexual remarks made by the appellant to SB. These grounds concerned the admissibility and use of discreditable conduct evidence under Division 3 of Part 3 of the *Evidence Act*.

The Full Court found that both grounds of appeal were made good. The Court explained that under section 34R(1) of the *Evidence Act*, a trial judge must identify and explain the purposes for which discreditable conduct evidence may and may not be used. The Court determined that the trial judge had failed to adequately discharge this obligation in relation to both the domestic violence evidence and the sexual comments evidence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the conviction was unsafe and that it was not a proper case to invoke the proviso to the common form appeal provisions.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial.