R v B, J

The case of R v B, J involved an appeal against a conviction for three counts of gross indecency. The appellant, who was the natural father of the complainant, was convicted based on the testimony of his daughter. The key issues in the appeal related to the adequacy of the warnings given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury about the potential influence of the complainant's mother and the delay in making the complaint. The appellant also contended that the Longman warning, which is a warning about the reliability of uncorroborated evidence in sexual offence cases, was insufficient.

The court examined whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and whether the warnings were appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have warned the jury of the mother's fixation with child abuse and the complainant's access to a book on child abuse around the time of the complaint. The appellant further argued that the complainant had opportunities to report the alleged offences to a counsellor but did not do so. Additionally, the appellant questioned the sufficiency of the Longman warning and whether the trial judge's instruction that the complainant's delay in making a complaint was not necessarily open to criticism was an error.

The court concluded that the concerns raised by the appellant were more in the nature of defence arguments and did not constitute factors that might lead to a miscarriage of justice. The trial judge had given clear directions to the jury to scrutinize the complainant's evidence with great care. The court found that the trial judge was correct in not directing the jury that it would be dangerous or unsafe to convict on the complainant's unsupported evidence. The court also held that whether or not a Longman warning should be given depends on the circumstances of each case. The trial judge's balanced direction on the failure to complain was deemed appropriate, and any forensic disadvantage resulting from the delay in the complaint would have been apparent to the jury. The court found no error in the trial judge's instructions regarding the complainant's delay in making a complaint. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court noted that the rule requiring a judge to give a Longman warning had been abolished, and future cases would be governed by new provisions in the Evidence Act. However, this case was subject to the law in effect at the time of the trial, and the appeal would not alter the outcome of the re-trial if allowed. The court concluded that the warnings given by the trial judge were apt to meet the circumstances of the case and nothing further was required. The appeal was dismissed by the court.