R v Hennig

The appeal concerned a criminal conviction for acts of sexual exploitation. The appellant, R v Hennig, was charged with offences against two complainants, ST and JT, who were children at the time of the alleged offending. The prosecution case involved allegations of ongoing sexual exploitation over several years, occurring within a family setting where the appellant was in a relationship with the complainants' mother.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's violent conduct towards the complainants and their mother, and whether this evidence was properly directed to the jury. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to order separate trials for the charges relating to each complainant, and whether separate directions were required regarding the violent conduct evidence in relation to each complainant.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kelly, Nicholson, and Lovell JJ, reasoned that the evidence of the appellant's violent conduct was highly relevant to explaining the context and atmosphere in which the offending occurred, and why the complainants may not have complained sooner. The court held that it was open to the jury to use this evidence as directed by the trial judge, and that the absence of specific references to the violent conduct by the complainants when discussing delays in complaining did not absolve the trial judge of the obligation to provide directions in accordance with section 34R of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). Furthermore, the court found no error in the refusal to separate the trials or in the directions given concerning the violent conduct evidence as it related to each complainant, as no miscarriage of justice had been demonstrated.

The appeal was dismissed.