R v Bromley

The case of *R v Bromley* concerned an application to the Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal, by the applicant, Bromley, and a co-accused, Karpany. The dispute arose from their convictions for the murder of a man named Docoza, whose body was found in the River Torrens. The prosecution's case at trial relied heavily on the testimony of Gary Carter, who alleged that Bromley and Karpany had assaulted and drowned Docoza. Bromley and Karpany both denied involvement in their unsworn statements at trial.

The Court was required to determine whether to admit new evidence, specifically psychiatric and psychological reports, that had become available since the original trial. This new evidence concerned the applicant's diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and its implications for his reliability as a witness and his susceptibility to suggestibility during police interrogations. The Court also considered the admissibility of prior convictions of Bromley and Karpany for attempted rape and assault, which the respondent sought to use as propensity evidence.

The Court reasoned that while there had been advancements in the understanding of schizoaffective disorder since the trial, particularly regarding memory impairment and suggestibility, this did not automatically render the applicant's original testimony unreliable. The expert consensus indicated that individuals with schizoaffective disorder could still give reliable evidence and recall events accurately, provided there was independent corroboration. The Court also addressed the admissibility of the prior convictions, noting that such evidence would need to be carefully considered in light of its potential prejudicial effect.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application. The new psychiatric evidence, while informative about the nature of schizoaffective disorder, did not establish that the applicant's evidence at trial was inherently unreliable or that his prior convictions were admissible for the purpose of establishing propensity. The Court found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the admission of further evidence on appeal.