R v Cronin

The appeal concerned the conviction of the appellant for two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of recorded interviews with the complainant and the extent to which the defence could cross-examine the complainant at trial. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting a recorded interview with the complainant pursuant to section 13BA of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), and whether the judge wrongly refused to permit cross-examination of the complainant on the extent of penetration. The court also considered the application of transitional provisions relating to amendments to the *Evidence Act* concerning vulnerable witnesses.

The court found that the first recorded interview with the complainant should not have been admitted. While the interview was made before the commencement of section 13BA, the transitional provisions allowed for its admission if it met certain criteria. However, the court determined that the interview did not satisfy the requirements for admissibility under the relevant provisions. Regarding the cross-examination, the court held that the judge did not err in refusing permission in the circumstances presented at trial, though it noted that a different outcome might arise at a retrial depending on the evidence adduced and the forensic purpose of any proposed cross-examination.

Consequently, the court granted permission to appeal on the ground relating to the admissibility of the recorded interview, quashed the convictions on counts 1 and 2, and directed a new trial on those charges.