R v Miller

The appellant, Miller, appealed his conviction of sexual assault, arguing that the learned trial judge erred in denying leave to cross-examine the complainant about previous complaints of sexual assault. The trial judge had ruled that the previous complaints were not relevant to the issues in the current trial and that their admission would be unfairly prejudicial to the complainant. The trial was adjourned for six weeks, during which Miller claimed that he suffered a miscarriage of justice. Miller's appeal centred on whether the trial judge's decision not to allow the cross-examination and the length of the adjournment constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge's refusal to allow cross-examination about the previous complaints of sexual assault constituted an error of law that warranted a new trial. The court also considered whether the six-week adjournment amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Miller argued that the previous complaints were relevant to the complainant's credibility and that the adjournment caused him significant prejudice, making it impossible to prepare a proper defence.

The court held that the trial judge's decision not to allow cross-examination about the previous complaints was not an error of law. The court found that the previous complaints were not relevant to the issues in the current trial and that their admission would have been unfairly prejudicial to the complainant. The court also held that the six-week adjournment did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the adjournment was reasonable and necessary to allow the parties to prepare for trial, and that Miller had not suffered any significant prejudice as a result of the adjournment.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the trial judge's decision not to allow cross-examination about the previous complaints was not an error of law, and that the six-week adjournment did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the conviction was safe and that there was no basis for granting a new trial.