R v H, GJ

This matter came before the Supreme Court of South Australia on a case stated by a District Court judge. The applicant, R v H, GJ, was charged with indecent assault, with the alleged offending occurring between 16 October 1984 and 1 June 1985. The charges stemmed from an earlier information laid in the Magistrates Court in 2011, which also included charges of rape and unlawful sexual intercourse alleged to have occurred between 1983 and 1985. The central dispute concerned the admissibility and weight of evidence relating to the applicant's defence, particularly in light of the theft of documents prepared by the applicant for his defence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court judge erred in admitting certain evidence and in his findings regarding the applicant's defence. Specifically, the court was required to consider the implications of the applicant's assertion that crucial defence documents, including his own notes, correspondence with legal representatives, and medical records, were stolen. The court also had to determine the significance of the fact that witness declarations were prepared by "cutting and pasting" from earlier statements, without re-interviewing the witnesses to ascertain the extent of their present memory.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of fairness and the right to a proper defence. It was noted that the applicant claimed to have retained medical records from his general practitioner, which he believed would assist in establishing his whereabouts and the ages of the complainants. The court considered the applicant's evidence that these records, along with other defence materials, were stolen. The court also addressed the practice of using "cut and paste" witness statements, highlighting the importance of ensuring that witnesses are testifying from their current recollection, not merely verifying past statements. The judge's findings on these matters were central to the determination of the case.

The case was remitted to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's determination on the questions of law raised in the case stated.