Barnes (a pseudonym) v The King

The appeal concerned the appellant, identified pseudonymously as Barnes, who was convicted of sexual offences against a child. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, S Doyle and Bleby JJ. The central dispute revolved around the trial judge's summing up to the jury, particularly concerning the admissibility and use of evidence relating to the appellant's temperament.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge erred in her directions to the jury regarding evidence of the appellant's temperament, and whether this failure constituted a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the Court considered whether evidence of the appellant's angry temperament amounted to "discreditable conduct" under section 34P of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), and if so, whether the judge's failure to provide specific directions on its permissible use, as contemplated by section 34R of the *Evidence Act*, led to an impermissible "bad person" reasoning by the jury.

The Court reasoned that evidence of the appellant's temperament was relevant to the credibility of a complainant's evidence, particularly her perception of the appellant as an angry man. However, the Court distinguished this case from others where evidence of aggressive or manipulative behaviour was deemed "discreditable conduct" due to the context of abusing power. In the present case, the evidence of the appellant's angry temperament, while including one notable incident, was not of sufficient seriousness or accompanied by violent or inappropriate behaviour to create a substantial risk of the jury engaging in impermissible "bad person" reasoning without specific directions. Therefore, the Court concluded that the impugned evidence was not evidence of discreditable conduct for the purposes of the Act, and the trial judge's directions, while not expressly identifying the purpose of the evidence, did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.