R v P, G

Case

[2019] SASCFC 7

25 January 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
R v P, G [2019] SASCFC 7 [2019] SASCFC 7 25 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kelly, Blue and Lovell JJ, on appeal from a conviction. The appellant, the father of the complainant, was charged with sexual offences against his daughter. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had licked and touched the complainant's vagina on multiple occasions during access visits between November 2011 and March 2013. The complainant gave evidence of these events and also of later discovering and viewing disturbing pornography online, which led her to understand that the appellant's conduct had been wrong.

The appeal raised several grounds, including issues concerning the admissibility and use of recorded interviews with the complainant, who was a child. Specifically, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury on the permissible and impermissible uses of the recorded interview evidence, and by not providing a direction regarding the weight to be given to the complainant's repeated allegations. The appellant also raised a complaint regarding the directions given concerning evidence of complaint made to the complainant's mother.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal. Regarding the recorded interviews, the Court found that section 13BA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) does not mandate a direction on the permissible and impermissible uses of such evidence, unlike section 34R of the Act concerning discreditable conduct evidence. The appellant did not identify any specific impermissible uses that warranted a warning, nor had defence counsel requested such a direction at trial. The Court also held that the mere repetition of allegations does not necessarily enhance credibility, and this is a matter within a jury's ordinary experience, not requiring specific judicial direction. Furthermore, the trial judge had provided directions on the use of complaint evidence in accordance with section 34M of the Act, and the appellant had not demonstrated why these directions were inadequate or requested further directions.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

  • Evidence

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Charge

  • Expert Evidence

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Sentencing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
R v F, KV [2019] SADC 53

Cases Citing This Decision

3

R v HAY [2025] SADC 21
R v F, KV [2019] SADC 53
Cases Cited

14

Statutory Material Cited

1

R v Sparks [2017] SASCFC 171