H, SA v Police

The appellant, H, SA, was convicted by a Judge of the Youth Court of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. The appellant appealed against these convictions on several grounds, including that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of a confession made by the appellant to the police, and that the convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence due to inconsistencies between the complainant's account and the appellant's admissions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's confession to the police was voluntary and, if so, whether it should have been excluded in the exercise of the judge's discretion. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's interview with a psychologist under section 34CA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), and whether the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory given the alleged inconsistencies in the evidence.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and remitted the matter for a retrial before a different judge. The court found that while the complainant's evidence and the appellant's admissions could support guilty verdicts, it could not be said that convictions would inevitably have followed without those admissions. Furthermore, the court raised a significant question as to whether the concessions made by the appellant's counsel at trial could have justified the admission of the complainant's out-of-court statement under section 34CA of the Evidence Act.