Fergusson v The King

Case [2024] SASCA 63


SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Criminal)

FERGUSSON v THE KING

[2024] SASCA 63

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice Doyle and the Honourable Justice David)

22 May 2024

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE - MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE - SEXUAL OFFENCES

This is a conviction appeal.

The appellant was charged with the offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Following a trial by Judge alone, the appellant was found guilty of the offence.

The offending allegedly occurred between 19 December 2019 and 23 February 2021. At that time, the appellant was between 21 and 23 years of age, and the complainant was between 11 and 13 years of age. The appellant is the older brother of the complainant.

Most of the particularised acts were alleged to have occurred at the complainant’s home in Morphett Vale. Whilst the appellant did not live at the home, he would regularly stay there on weekends and on his own account, would often sleep the night in the complainant’s bedroom.

The prosecution adduced evidence of an initial complaint to the complainant 's best friend and an elaboration to her brother.

The appellant participated in a record of interview with police in May 2021, wherein he denied the allegations. It was an agreed fact that the appellant has no prior convictions. The appellant gave evidence in his own defence at trial and called good character evidence from two witnesses.

The appellant sought permission to appeal on three grounds relating to: first, the trial Judge’s use of the complainant’s distress when elaborating on her complaint to her brother; second, the trial Judge’s use of text messages sent by the complainant's mother  to the appellant to rebut recent invention; and third, the trial Judge’s use of evidence that the appellant regularly slept in the complainant’s bed to prove that he was sexually attracted to her when it was only relied on by the prosecution as evidence of his opportunity to commit the alleged unlawful sexual acts.

Held, by the Court, granting permission to appeal on Grounds 1 and 2, allowing the appeal, setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.

1.      The evidence of the complainant’s distress was not sufficiently temporally or causally connected to the alleged sexual offending to be admissible to support the complainant’s credibility, generally. The trial Judge's misuse of the evidence involved an error of law.

2.      The trial Judge’s use of the text messages to rebut an imputation of recent invention put by defence counsel…

Continue reading Fergusson v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fergusson v The King [2024] SASCA 63
Case
[2024] SASCA 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Fergusson v The King*, the appellant, Fergusson, appealed against his conviction for sexual offences. The appeal concerned the admissibility and use of certain evidence presented at trial, specifically evidence relating to the complainant's distress and her disclosure of the alleged offending to her brother.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting and directing the jury to consider evidence of the complainant's distressed state and her conversation with her brother as corroboration of her credibility. This involved an examination of the principles governing the admissibility of distress evidence and its use in sexual offence cases, particularly where the disclosure was made some time after the alleged offending and in circumstances of personal crisis.

The Court found that the appeal grounds concerning the distress evidence and the complainant's disclosure to her brother had merit. The reasoning focused on the potential for such evidence to be misused by the jury, leading to an impermissible inference of credibility rather than being confined to its proper evidentiary purpose. The Court determined that the trial judge's directions had not adequately cautioned the jury against drawing such inferences, thereby creating a risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the Court granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Court was satisfied that appeal grounds l and 2 must succeed. Accordingly, we granted permission to appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal; set aside the convictions; and ordered that there be a new trial. These are our reasons for those orders. Ground 1 – distress evidence The appellant complained that the trial Judge erred in using the evidence to support the complainant’s credibility. In order to properly outline the issues raised by this ground of appeal, it is necessary to detail the relevant parts of the complainant’s evidence as to her conversation with her brother and his observations of her distressed appearance. As outlined earlier, the appellant’s alleged offending occurred between late December 2019 and February 2021. The complainant was imprecise in her evidence as to when the last sexual act occurred, but she believed it occurred in 2021 at her grandmother’s house. The complainant gave evidence that she first disclosed the offending to her best friend in late 2020 (perhaps November or December). She said she also spoke to her brother about the alleged offending in February 2021. As to the circumstances in which she disclosed the offending to her brother, the complainant said that she had been fighting with her mother. As a result, she left home and consumed a ‘bunch of pills trying to overdose’. She then walked to her best friend’s house, who became concerned about her and called her mother. The complainant’s mother and her brother collected her in a car from her best friend’s house and they travelled to their home. After they arrived home, the complainant’s mother went inside. The complainant and her brother remained in the car. The complainant said that she then disclosed to her brother that the appellant ‘had been touching her for a while’. She said:A I just stayed in the car, like in silence, and then mum ended up walking out, [the complainant’s brother] came into the back seat and started talking to me, like trying to ask why, and stuff, and I ended up telling him that [the appellant] had been touching me for like months now. And I was just struggling with school, and I didn't want to live, and I just told him all of that, and he gave me a hug, and I think we just went back inside. Q You've said something about [the appellant], I know this is difficult, but can you remember the exact words that you used, what did you tell [the complainant’s brother] about [the appellant]. A I don't remember. I wouldn't have told him in detail, so I would have just said '[the appellant] was touching me'. … Q Apart from what you've already told his Honour, do you remember anything else about what you told [the complainant’s brother] about [the appellant]. A No. The complainant’s brother also gave evidence about this conversation. He said that the complainant did not want to tell him what was wrong and he ‘had to keep like persisting to try and like figure out what was wrong because she had been acting like this for four months, five months and [I] had to end up going like climbing into the back seat and like giving her a hug and like letting her know that she can tell [me] like how bad it is, like, even if it was like [my] uncle or kind of thing she can tell [me] and then she just said that it was [the appellant]’.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.