R v King

The case of R v King involved the respondent, King, who was on trial for charges of sexual assault. The prosecution presented a second complaint from the complainant, who initially reported the incident to police but later retracted her statement. The issue before the court was whether the second complaint, made after a significant delay, was admissible under the criminal law and procedure. The court had to determine if the complaint was made at the earliest reasonable opportunity, and if it was capable of supporting the credibility of the complainant. The trial judge ruled that the second complaint was inadmissible due to the delay, but the respondent appealed this decision.

The primary legal issue was whether the second complaint met the test of being made at the earliest reasonable opportunity. The court considered the test for admissibility of a fresh complaint, which requires the evidence to be capable of supporting the complainant's credibility. The court also examined the factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of the delay, including the circumstances surrounding the making of the complaint and the impact of the delay on the investigation. The court had to balance the probative value of the second complaint against the potential prejudice to the respondent if the evidence was admitted after a significant delay.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the second complaint was inadmissible as it did not meet the test of being made at the earliest reasonable opportunity. The court found that the delay was unreasonable and had the potential to prejudice the respondent. The court emphasised that the primary test for admissibility was whether the evidence was capable of supporting the credibility of the complainant, and in this case, the delay undermined the reliability of the complaint. The court also noted that the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations and the relationship between the parties, were relevant to the assessment of the reasonableness of the delay.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the trial judge was upheld. The court confirmed that the second complaint was inadmissible due to the unreasonable delay in making it, and the trial proceeded without the second complaint being considered as evidence. The respondent was ultimately found guilty on the basis of the first complaint and other evidence presented at the trial.