R v Maiolo

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Nyland, Anderson and David JJ, heard an appeal by Robert John Maiolo against his conviction by a jury on ten counts. These counts comprised five counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and five counts of indecent assault, alleged to have been committed against four complainants. Three of the complainants were sisters, and the fourth was the appellant's daughter from a relationship with another sister of the complainants. All ten counts were joined in a single indictment, and no application for severance was made at trial.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the jury hearing evidence that was not cross-admissible between the complainants caused impermissible prejudice to the appellant, whether the trial judge should have declared a mistrial following a late ruling that the evidence was not cross-admissible, and whether the judge's subsequent directions to the jury adequately addressed this prejudice. The appellant argued that these issues, individually or collectively, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant had suffered impermissible prejudice. This prejudice arose because the trial had proceeded as if the evidence of each complainant was admissible against the others, when the trial judge later ruled it was not. The court determined that this prejudice could not be cured by directions to the jury, which were found to be inadequate in any event. Consequently, the only appropriate course to rectify the prejudice was to declare a mistrial.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered. The court noted the unfortunate circumstances of the trial, where issues of cross-admissibility and severance were not adequately addressed before the prosecution's opening, leading to the procedural difficulties.