Baptiste v The King

The appeal concerned a conviction for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The appellant, the stepfather of the complainant, was alleged to have engaged in various sexual acts with the complainant, who was 14 years old at the time of the offending. The complainant reported the abuse to a friend, who in turn reported it to the school principal, leading to a mandatory report to the authorities. The appellant appealed his conviction from the District Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the trial judge’s failure to give a specific direction to the jury, as required by section 34M(4)(c) of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. This section mandates that a judge must direct the jury that there may be varied reasons why an alleged victim of a sexual offence has made a complaint at a particular time or to a particular person, and that otherwise, the significance of the complaint is a matter for the jury. The respondent conceded that the judge had failed to give this direction.

The Court found that the trial judge’s directions on the evidence of complaint, while covering some aspects of section 34M(4), omitted the crucial direction required by subsection (4)(c). The judge's summation focused on the consistency of the complaint with the alleged conduct and its role in explaining how the allegations came to light, but did not explicitly inform the jury that there could be various reasons for the timing or recipient of the complaint, and that its significance was otherwise for them to determine. Despite the respondent's submission that this omission did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court concluded that the failure to provide the required direction was an error of law.

The Court allowed the appeal on this ground, quashed the conviction, and remitted the matter for retrial. The Court noted that it was strictly unnecessary to consider other grounds of appeal, but addressed one further ground in light of recent case law and the submissions made.