R v Haak

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse. The appellant, R v Haak, was convicted by a judge alone of one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a complainant who was five years old at the time of the alleged offence and six years old at the trial. The complainant gave unsworn evidence, and two out-of-court video statements were tendered pursuant to s 34C of the *Evidence Act 1926*. The appellant’s grounds of appeal were that the trial judge erred in failing to warn himself pursuant to s 12A of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), and that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had a duty to issue a warning to himself under s 12A of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA) when sitting alone, and whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, having regard to the alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainant's testimony. The appellant relied on these perceived deficiencies in the complainant's evidence to argue that her testimony should not have been accepted.

The court dismissed the appeal. While acknowledging the appellant's arguments regarding inconsistencies, the court found that these did not provide cogent reasons to doubt the complainant's evidence or the soundness of the convictions. The judge reasoned that the inconsistencies and improbable aspects of the complainant's account were more likely attributable to her limited cognitive development and command of language, rather than any fundamental inaccuracy about the appellant's conduct. The court noted that the complainant correctly identified the appellant by name and that there was no plausible alternative perpetrator. The trial judge's reasons demonstrated a careful scrutiny of the complainant's evidence against the criticisms raised, and the judge was favourably impressed by the complainant's testimony, finding her spontaneous and convincing. The judge also found the appellant's evidence less convincing, particularly regarding his consumption of alcohol.