De Sa v The Queen

The appellant, De Sa, appealed against convictions recorded on a guilty plea. The appeal concerned alleged errors by the trial judge in fact-finding, the application of the burden and standard of proof, assessing forensic disadvantage, and providing adequate reasons for her decision. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was required to determine whether these alleged errors constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered several grounds of appeal. Firstly, it examined whether the trial judge erred in fact-finding or in applying the burden and standard of proof, particularly in relation to the evidence of Constable Holmes and the existence of a particular text message. Secondly, the court assessed whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant was not under a significant forensic disadvantage due to the delay between the alleged offending and the trial, as contemplated by section 34CB of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). Finally, the court reviewed whether the trial judge provided adequate reasons for her decision and whether the verdicts were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence.

The court reasoned that the trial judge did not err in her fact-finding or in applying the burden and standard of proof, accepting the complainant's and her mother's evidence regarding the text message despite Constable Holmes's lack of recollection. The judge's assessment of Constable Holmes's inexperience and the deficiencies in the police investigation were found to be valid considerations. Furthermore, the court found no error in the assessment of forensic disadvantage, agreeing with the trial judge that the lapse of time had not resulted in a *significant* disadvantage to the appellant, and that the judge had properly taken into account the deficiencies in the investigation when considering whether the prosecution had proved its case. The court also concluded that the trial judge provided adequate reasons and that the verdicts were not unreasonable.

Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed.