Anderson (a pseudonym) v The King

The appellant, Anderson (a pseudonym), appealed his conviction for a sexual offence. The appeal concerned the admissibility and use of complaint evidence, specifically an "initial complaint" made by the complainant to a school friend and an "elaboration" of that complaint made to a former domestic partner. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the "elaboration" of the complaint was admissible under section 34M of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), and if not, whether its admission, along with the judge's directions regarding complaint evidence, constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the trial judge's directions regarding statements made by the appellant to police and in a phone call, which might have been interpreted as lies indicating consciousness of guilt, were adequate.

The court reasoned that the evidence of the later complaint to the former domestic partner was not an admissible "elaboration" of the initial complaint under section 34M(6) of the *Evidence Act*. This was because the later statement, made significantly later and containing more detail, did not fit the statutory definition of an elaboration. The court noted that complaint evidence, even when admissible, can be prejudicial to a defendant by blurring the distinction between evidence of consistency and evidence of the truth of the allegations. The court found that the admission of this inadmissible evidence, coupled with the judge's instructions which did not adequately guard against its prejudicial effect, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the court granted permission to appeal on grounds relating to the complaint evidence and allowed the appeal on those grounds. The conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a retrial.