Longman v The Queen

In *Longman v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia concerning the admissibility and presentation of evidence in a criminal trial for a sexual offence. The central dispute revolved around the requirement for a judge to give a warning to the jury regarding the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the *Evidence Act 1906* (W.A.), specifically section 36s£, which abolished the rule requiring a warning in cases of uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in sexual offence trials, was valid. The court also had to determine whether, in the absence of a mandatory warning, a judge retained a discretion to give such a warning if satisfied it was justified by the circumstances, and if so, how that discretion should be exercised.

The High Court held that section 36s£ of the *Evidence Act 1906* (W.A.) was a valid exercise of the legislative power of Western Australia. However, the Court reasoned that the abolition of the mandatory warning did not extinguish the judge's power to direct the jury on the need for caution when assessing uncorroborated evidence, particularly in sexual offence cases. The judge's discretion to give such a warning was affirmed, but it was to be exercised only when the judge was satisfied that the circumstances of the case warranted it, to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia. In its place, the High Court ordered that the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal be allowed, the convictions be quashed, and that there be a new trial.