R v Hollsten

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction for sexual offences. The appellant, Mr Hollsten, argued that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the admission of certain evidence relating to complaints made by the complainant, referred to as 'A', to two individuals, Mr Rushby and Mr Hall. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of the details of these complaints under section 34M of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA).

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of complaints made by A to Mr Hall, and whether this admission constituted a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence given by Mr Hall constituted an admissible "elaboration" of an earlier complaint made by A to Mr Rushby, as required by section 34M of the *Evidence Act 1929*.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence of the complaint to Mr Hall. The reasoning was that A had consistently stated on the *voir dire* that she had provided the same, low level of detail to both Mr Rushby and Mr Hall. While Mr Hall's evidence did disclose more detail than A recalled telling Mr Rushby, this did not, in itself, constitute an elaboration of the initial complaint to Mr Rushby. The court held that the prosecution's argument, which persuaded the trial judge, contained a fallacy: it assumed that because Mr Hall's evidence showed A was mistaken about the *level* of detail she provided, it could also demonstrate that she provided *more* detail to Mr Hall than to Mr Rushby, thereby constituting an elaboration. However, A's firm evidence was that she gave the same level of detail to both. Therefore, the evidence of Mr Hall could not establish an elaboration of the complaint to Mr Rushby, and its admission was improper.

The court concluded that the admission of Mr Hall's evidence was a material error and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.