R v J, SM

This case concerned an appeal against convictions for sexual offences. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the evidence of the complainant, S, who alleged various sexual acts by the defendant, her father, between 2004 and 2008. Evidence of complaint was given by S's brother, A, and her mother, M. A also provided corroborative evidence by testifying to hearing S crying and knocking sounds from the defendant's bedroom. The appeal arose from two rulings made by the trial judge during the cross-examination of A.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in disallowing a question put to A asking whether S should be believed on her testimony, and whether the judge wrongly prevented counsel from cross-examining A about a document containing adverse comments about S's credibility. These rulings were argued to be contrary to an ancient common law rule, the "oath-belief rule," which permits a witness to be asked whether another witness should be believed on their oath. The Director contended that this rule was an anachronistic relic inconsistent with modern evidence principles.

The court considered the historical origins of the oath-belief rule, tracing it back to ancient forms of trial like ordeal and compurgation, where the concept of being "oath-worthy" was paramount. While acknowledging that individual justices in higher courts had referred to the rule as an exception to the credit rule, the court found considerable force in the Director's submissions that the rule is difficult to justify in the context of modern evidence law, particularly its potential conflict with the opinion and hearsay rules. The court noted that the Uniform Evidence Acts do not permit such questioning, suggesting the rule would not be incorporated if the matter were approached afresh. Despite this, the court ultimately found that the second ground of appeal, relating to the document, should be rejected.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the first ground, setting aside the convictions. The court ordered a retrial and remitted the matter to the District Court for that purpose.