MWL v The Queen

The appeal concerned the convictions of the appellant, MWL, for sexual offences. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, comprising Southwood, Blokland, and Hiley JJ. The central dispute revolved around alleged failures by the trial judge to provide adequate directions to the jury on several crucial matters.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury in accordance with the principles established in *Edwards v The Queen* and *Zoneff v The Queen* regarding the use of lies told by the appellant as evidence of guilt. Further issues concerned the adequacy of directions relating to the complainant's behaviour, the forensic disadvantage arising from delay in reporting the alleged offences, and the proper use of complaint evidence in a "hard swearing" case.

The majority of the Court, constituted by Southwood and Blokland JJ, allowed the appeal on the grounds relating to the failure to give a direction about lies, the admissibility of evidence about the complainant's behaviour, and the use of complaint evidence. They found a real or perceptible danger that the jury might have used the appellant's denials as evidence of guilt, or that the jury might have used hearsay contained within the complaint evidence to independently support the complainant's testimony. Hiley J dissented on these grounds. Southwood J also dissented from the majority regarding the direction on forensic disadvantage due to delay for count 1.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a retrial.