Fergusson v The King

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.