Longman v The King

The appellant, Longman, appealed against his convictions for attempted rape of a child and sexual abuse of a child, following a trial by judge alone. The charges related to two complainants, IRD and SRC. The appellant was convicted of attempted rape of IRD in 2013 and sexual abuse of SRC in 2016. He was acquitted of other charges relating to IRD concerning alleged offences in 2018.

The appeal raised several legal issues. Firstly, whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the joint trial of the counts relating to IRD and SRC. Secondly, whether the judge erred in his use of discreditable conduct evidence admitted under s 34P(2)(a) of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), or alternatively, whether the judge's reasons were inadequate in explaining how the verdict on the 2018 counts bore on his findings in relation to the other counts. Thirdly, whether the judge's reasons for verdict were inadequate in failing to properly explain the finding of guilt on the 2013 attempted rape charge when the appellant was found not guilty of the 2018 charges concerning IRD.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia granted an extension of time for the appeal and permission to appeal on the first ground concerning the joint trial. However, it dismissed the appeal on this ground. The Court also dismissed the appeal on the second and third grounds, finding no error in the judge's reasoning or the adequacy of his reasons. The Court noted that the judge's finding of guilt on the attempted rape charge (count 1) was independently supported by the evidence of SL, who heard a noise and saw the appellant with IRD in her son's bedroom, and that the judge found IRD's evidence credible and the appellant's unsatisfactory. The judge's acquittal on the 2018 charges was based on a reasonable doubt arising from IRD's delayed complaint, which was not inconsistent with the conviction on count 1.

The appeal was dismissed.