R v B, AM

The appeal concerned the conviction of the appellant for maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child, contrary to s 13D of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The dispute arose from allegations that the appellant, who was married to MCF's mother and later became MCF's de facto father and guardian, engaged in escalating sexual contact with MCF between 2011 and 2013, when MCF was between 11 and 13 years of age. The matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia following the appellant's conviction at trial.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the trial judge had erred in refusing an application for MCF to be called as a witness at a previous trial, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice. Further, the court was required to determine if the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury regarding the permissible and impermissible use of evidence given by a prosecution witness, SC, who testified about the appellant's admissions of attraction to MCF and fears of becoming a predator. Finally, the court considered whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the standard and burden of proof, and the need for careful scrutiny of MCF's evidence.

The Full Court addressed the grounds of appeal. Regarding the first ground, the court considered the proper application of s 13D of the Act in relation to the tender of MCF's evidence. The court found that the trial judge's directions concerning the evidence of SC were insufficient, particularly in relation to the potential for that evidence to be used as propensity evidence, which would be impermissible. The court also found that the directions on the burden and standard of proof, and the need to scrutinise MCF's evidence, were not adequately given.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.