JGS v The Queen (No 2)

The appeal concerned a conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse. The appellant, JGS, was found guilty by a jury of eight counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with his niece, HG, who was 13 years old at the commencement of the offending period. The alleged offending occurred over several years, commencing in 2003. The appeal was brought before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The grounds of appeal raised a number of legal issues. These included whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, whether certain documentary evidence of initial complaint was wrongly admitted under section 34M of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), whether the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the required state of satisfaction for conviction and misdirected them on the burden and standard of proof, whether evidence from certain witnesses was wrongly admitted, whether the trial judge erred in failing to adequately direct the jury on the permissible use of uncharged acts, and whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to apprehended bias of a juror.

The Court dismissed the ground of appeal concerning the unreasonableness of the verdicts. It found that while the appellant had exhaustively identified inconsistencies and discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, both internally and by reference to other evidence, the jury, acting rationally, was entitled to assess the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable in respect of the counts on which it returned guilty verdicts. The Court noted that the inherent plausibility of the complainant's account and the lack of corroboration were matters for the jury to consider in the context of the hierarchical structure of the group and the appellant's role as its leader. The Court also addressed the admissibility of documentary evidence of initial complaint, noting that the trial judge admitted an edited portion of an online chat, ruling it admissible as an initial complaint if the complainant gave evidence that it constituted an accurate record of her statements. The complainant testified that the document was an accurate, word-for-word record of her statements to her cousin.