Miller v The King

The appeal before the Supreme Court of South Australia, Criminal Division, concerned a conviction for sexual offences. The appellant, Miller, was accused by the complainant of engaging in a series of sexual acts when she was between the ages of 12 and 16. The prosecution relied heavily on the complainant's evidence, while the appellant denied the allegations, admitting only to visiting the complainant's bedroom window on three occasions for counselling purposes.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge provided adequate reasons for accepting the complainant as a credible and reliable witness, and whether the judge properly directed himself regarding the use of evidence of discreditable conduct under sections 34P and 34R of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). Specifically, the appellant argued that the judge failed to adequately explain why he found the complainant credible, focusing on the judge's statement that her account was detailed. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the judge did not properly explain the permissible and impermissible uses of evidence relating to the appellant's alleged sexual interest in the complainant, such as the campervan incident, admissions to Church Elders, and the Maslins Beach visit.

The Court found that the trial judge's reasons for accepting the complainant as credible were insufficient, as the mere detail of her account did not, in itself, explain why it was found to be credible and reliable. More significantly, the Court determined that the trial judge failed to give himself adequate directions in accordance with section 34R(1) of the *Evidence Act*. This failure meant the appellate court could not ascertain whether evidence of the appellant's alleged sexual interest in the complainant was used impermissibly. The judge's inadequate treatment of the campervan evidence also prevented the court from understanding how a significant discrepancy in the evidence was resolved, which was crucial for assessing the complainant's credibility. Given the central role of credibility in the trial, these errors meant the appellate court could not be satisfied that the appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a retrial.