R v E, DJ

The appeal concerned a conviction for aggravated indecent assault. The appellant, R v E, DJ, was convicted by a judge sitting alone. The appeal was heard by Vanstone, Anderson, and Kourakis JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had correctly admitted out-of-court statements made by the complainant pursuant to section 34CA of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), whether the complainant's evidence required corroboration and if it was sufficiently corroborated, whether a warning under section 12A of the Act was required or had been adequately given by the judge to himself, and whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The admissibility of a diary kept by the complainant was also challenged.

The majority of the Court, comprising Vanstone and Anderson JJ, dismissed the appeal. They found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the out-of-court statements, noting that their admissibility was not opposed by defence counsel at trial. While Anderson J found that there was evidence corroborating the complainant's presence at the appellant's house on the relevant weekend, Kourakis J disagreed on this specific point. However, Kourakis J agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, reasoning that even if section 12A of the Act applied to a judge sitting alone, which he doubted, the obligation to give a warning did not arise as the appellant's trial counsel had not requested it. He further noted that the trial judge had scrutinised the complainant's evidence with special care, and that the judge's finding of corroboration did not improperly influence his determination of guilt. The Court also held that the diary was correctly admitted and that proper directions were given.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.