Hamra v The Queen; DL v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered applications for special leave to appeal in two matters, *Hamra v The Queen* and *DL v The Queen*. The central dispute concerned the interpretation of section 50 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA), which deals with sexual exploitation offences. The applicants argued that the Chief Justice of the South Australian Supreme Court erred in his interpretation of this section, which had been affirmed by a majority of the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether section 50 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA) requires the identification of specific occasions on which sexual exploitation acts were committed, or if a more generalised allegation of such conduct is permissible. Further, the Court was asked to consider whether the Chief Justice erred in granting permission to the Crown to appeal against an acquittal, particularly in circumstances where the trial judge found the evidence insufficient to distinguish particular occasions of offending. The applicants contended that the Chief Justice's interpretation departed from established High Court authority and prior South Australian Court of Appeal decisions.

The applicants argued that section 50, when read in conjunction with High Court decisions such as *KBT v The Queen* and *KRM v The Queen*, necessitates proof of distinct sexual offences, not merely a general course of illegitimate sexual conduct. They submitted that the Chief Justice's approach, which focused on the perceived mischief of the section, effectively altered the substantive elements of the offence by relaxing the requirement for particularity in proof, contrary to established principles. The Crown, however, argued that section 50(4) expressly permits a less particularised form of charging and proof, signalling a departure from common law requirements regarding time, place, and order of acts, and that this amelioration of charging requirements necessarily extends to proof. The Crown further contended that prior jurisprudence concerning extended unanimity directions related to the elements of the offence and did not preclude the less particularised proof regime contemplated by section 50.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal in *Hamra v The Queen*, noting that the issues raised were of general importance and had led to inconsistent holdings within the South Australian Court of Appeal. The Court indicated that if *Hamra* were resolved in favour of the applicant, it would likely resolve the issues in *DL v The Queen* as well. The Court also considered an amendment to the grounds of appeal in *Hamra* to refine the articulation of the legal question.