R v J, AP

In R v J, AP, the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia considered an appeal against a conviction. The appellant, J, sought to overturn his conviction on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the complainant's evidence was unreliable, and whether certain statutory provisions relating to the evidence of children, specifically sections 12A and 34CA of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), required a warning to the jury. The appellant argued that inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts, her memory at the time of the first trial, and the evidence of a psychologist raised doubts about her reliability.

The Court, in dismissing the appeal, found no substantial inconsistency in the complainant's account regarding the location, circumstances, or number of sexual acts. The complainant's lack of memory at the time of the first trial was not considered indicative of unreliability in her initial disclosures. Furthermore, the evidence of the psychologist did not raise doubts as to the complainant's reliability. The Court held that minor inconsistencies in a young child's account of peripheral matters, given years after the event, do not constitute cogent reasons for the purposes of section 12A of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). Consequently, none of the circumstances relied upon by the appellant warranted a warning under section 12A. The Chief Justice also noted that, pending a definitive ruling on the relationship between sections 12A and 34CA of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), it would be prudent for trial judges to treat statements admitted under section 34CA as if they were the evidence of a child for the purposes of section 12A.