Kakule v The King

The appeal in *Kakule v The King* was brought by the appellant, Kakule, against the Crown. The dispute concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding evidence of a complaint made by the complainant. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Livesey P, Lovell and Bleby JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had provided sufficient directions to the jury concerning the evidence of the complainant's initial complaint, as required by section 34M(4)(c) of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the judge's directions adequately explained to the jury that the evidence of the complaint could only be used for limited purposes, such as corroborating the complainant's evidence, and not as proof of the facts alleged in the complaint itself.

The Court found that while the trial judge had directed the jury in accordance with sections 34M(4)(a) and (b), she had failed to provide the specific direction mandated by section 34M(4)(c). The judge had explained consistency and reminded the jury of the evidence, but did not explicitly instruct them on the limited evidentiary value of the complaint. The Court noted that the defence had raised plausible alternative explanations for the complainant's conduct, including shame and miscommunication, which were not adequately addressed in the context of the complaint direction. Given that the jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility was critical, the failure to provide the required direction constituted a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the matter be remitted for a retrial.