R v Flentjar (No1)

The matter before the court involved the Crown seeking leave to cross-examine the de facto partner of the accused, Flentjar, who was deemed an unfavourable witness. The dispute centred around the admissibility and relevance of the partner's evidence under the common law rule that prevents spouses or de facto partners from testifying against each other. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the common law rule prohibiting spouses or de facto partners from testifying against each other could be circumvented when the partner was an unfavourable witness. The court also had to consider the relevance and admissibility of the partner's evidence in the context of the trial. Additionally, the court needed to determine the extent to which the common law rule could be applied to prevent a de facto partner from providing evidence that could potentially prejudice the accused.

The court held that the common law rule prohibiting spouses or de facto partners from testifying against each other did not apply to prevent the partner from providing evidence in this case. The court found that the partner's evidence was relevant and could be admitted as it pertained to the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court concluded that the common law rule was not absolute and could be set aside if it would result in an injustice or if it was not in the interests of justice. The court granted the Crown's application to cross-examine the de facto partner, allowing the partner's evidence to be used in the trial.