R v Kader (No 2)

In the matter of R v Kader (No 2), the defendant, Kader, applied for the court to permit evidence of the complainant's past sexual activities, in accordance with section 78 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT). The application was unopposed by the complainant, but the court was required to consider whether it was appropriate to provide written reasons for its decision, given the absence of opposition.

The legal issue before the court was whether the requirement for written reasons under section 78(2) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) applied even when the application to adduce evidence was unopposed. The court considered the legislative intent behind the requirement for written reasons and weighed this against the potential utility of such reasons when the application was unopposed.

The court concluded that the requirement for written reasons was intended to ensure transparency and accountability in cases where the application was opposed or where the consideration of the issue was complex. In cases where the application was unopposed, the court found that the requirement for written reasons did not significantly contribute to the objectives of the division, as the reasons provided in such cases were often perfunctory. The court decided that it was not necessary to provide written reasons in this case, as the application was unopposed and the decision to permit the evidence was straightforward. The court's decision was in line with previous cases where the requirement for written reasons was not strictly enforced in similar circumstances.

No further orders were made by the court, as the decision to permit the evidence was the primary focus of the application. The court's decision was based on the principle that the requirement for written reasons was not mandatory in cases where the application was unopposed and the decision was not complex. The court acknowledged the importance of protecting complainants in sexual offence trials but found that the requirement for written reasons did not serve a significant purpose in cases where the application was unopposed.