R v Johnson

The appellant, R v Johnson, was convicted of sexual offences against a child. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the adequacy of jury directions. The court was required to determine whether the admission of complaint evidence was lawful and whether the trial judge provided sufficient directions to the jury regarding its use, and whether the verdict on one count was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The primary legal issues before the court were the admissibility and proper use of complaint evidence in sexual offence cases, particularly in light of section 34M of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to rebut the presumption of doli incapax for a ten-year-old offender. The court also considered whether the conviction for persistent sexual exploitation of a child was supported by the evidence and the judge's directions.

The court found that while complaint evidence was admitted, no objections were recorded, and the trial judge's directions regarding its use were not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, the court focused on the presumption of doli incapax, noting that for an offender under the age of ten, there is a presumption that they lack criminal capacity. The court held that the evidence of three uncharged acts, when considered with the parental response to the child's complaints, was insufficient to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, aged ten at the time of the shed incident, understood his actions were wrong in the sense of attracting criminal responsibility. The court also reviewed the evidence and directions concerning count 3, the charge of persistent sexual exploitation, noting the judge's summation focused on the complainant's credibility and the likelihood of the alleged events occurring.

Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal in relation to count 1, finding the verdict unreasonable and insupportable, and ordered an acquittal. The court's decision on count 1 made it unnecessary to consider one of the grounds of appeal relating to that count. The court then proceeded to consider the application of another ground of appeal to the conviction on count 3.