R v Fuller

The appellant, R v Fuller, appealed against both his conviction for a sexual offence and the sentence imposed. The appeal against conviction was based on the sole ground that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury regarding the relevance of intoxication to the assessment of the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence. The appeal against sentence argued that the imposed sentence was manifestly excessive. The complainant, a 14-year-old girl, alleged that the appellant performed cunnilingus on her while she was asleep and intoxicated. The appellant denied the sexual contact, suggesting that the complainant's foster sister's eight-year-old son may have committed the acts.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the trial judge had provided sufficient directions to the jury concerning the impact of intoxication, both of the appellant and the complainant, on the assessment of evidence and the determination of the appellant's intent. Specifically, the court considered whether the jury had been adequately guided on how to approach the complainant's evidence given her intoxication, and how the appellant's intoxication might have affected his perception of events and his ability to form the necessary intent for the offence.

The court referred to the principles established in *Bedi v The Queen*, which held that evidence of intoxication is relevant to various issues in a criminal trial, including the existence of a particular state of mind, the appreciation of facts relevant to an element of an offence or a defence, and the reliability of witnesses. If such evidence is capable of bearing on these issues, it is the duty of the trial judge to identify it for the jury and relate it to the relevant legal principles with appropriate directions. The court noted that in *Bedi*, the trial judge had given some directions regarding intoxication but had failed to provide specific directions on its effect on the accused's intention or the victim's reliability.

The court allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The court found that the trial judge's directions on intoxication were inadequate, particularly in relation to the complainant's reliability and the appellant's intent. The court concluded that the evidence of intoxication was capable of having a bearing on these issues and that the jury required more specific guidance from the trial judge. The appeal against sentence was dismissed as it was rendered moot by the successful appeal against conviction.