Naylor v The

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr. Fleming QC, appeared with Ms. Carew for the applicant, while Mr. Bullock appeared with Mr. Chowdhury for the respondent. The dispute concerned the adequacy of a warning given by a trial judge to a jury regarding the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in a sexual offence case.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the warning given by the trial judge was adequate, particularly in light of a delay in the complaint, a lack of fresh complaint, and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence. The applicant argued that while a warning was given, it was not sufficiently strong or general, especially given the circumstances of the case, and that the Court should make a statement regarding such warnings in cases involving significant time lapses.

The applicant's submissions focused on the principle that it is unsafe to convict on uncorroborated evidence in certain sexual offence cases, a principle reflected in section 210 of the Criminal Code. The applicant contended that the delay of approximately one year, the absence of a fresh complaint, and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, as noted by the Court of Appeal, all pointed to a real possibility of fabrication. While acknowledging that the fresh complaint issue related to credibility rather than corroboration, the applicant argued it was relevant to the overall safety of a conviction. The applicant also distinguished the present case from *Longman*, suggesting a need for a more general statement on warnings applicable to a broader range of circumstances.

The applicant sought a stronger and more general summing up to the jury, arguing that the trial judge's warning, despite mentioning the difficulty of convicting on uncorroborated evidence, did not adequately address the specific concerns arising from the delay, lack of fresh complaint, and inconsistencies in the evidence. The applicant submitted that these factors, individually and collectively, raised the possibility of fabrication, necessitating a more robust direction to the jury.