EYO v The State of Western Australia

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, EYO was convicted following a trial of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 13 years and inciting that child to engage in sexual behaviour. The State of Western Australia appealed against the convictions on three grounds. The first ground was that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of an interview with the child. The second ground was that the child's evidence was not voluntary and that the caution had not been properly understood. The third ground was that the interview should have been excluded in the exercise of the unfairness discretion under the Anunga guidelines.

The court considered the arguments on each ground. In relation to the first ground, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence of the interview. The second ground was more contentious. The court found that the evidence demonstrated that the child's evidence was not voluntary and that the caution had not been properly understood. This was a significant error that affected the fairness of the trial. The court found that the interview should have been excluded under the Anunga guidelines. In relation to the third ground, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in not excluding the evidence of the interview.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and entered judgments of acquittal. Leave was refused on the first and third grounds of appeal. Leave was granted on the second ground of appeal. The convictions were set aside and judgments of acquittal were entered in their place. The court held that the error in admitting the evidence of the interview was so significant that it affected the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the evidence. The convictions could not stand.