R v PDW

This matter concerned an appeal against conviction before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Martin (BR) CJ, Riley and Southwood JJ. The appellant, PDW, had been convicted on certain counts and a verdict had not been reached on another count. The appeal raised several grounds, including that the verdict was unreasonable, and specifically, that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence relating to the complainant's credibility.

The central legal issue for determination was whether the trial judge was correct in disallowing a question posed during cross-examination of the complainant's mother, SW. The question asked whether SW believed the complainant when she gave evidence under oath. This related to grounds of appeal concerning the exclusion of evidence and the directions given to the jury regarding the complainant's credibility.

The Full Court, in considering the appeal, referred to established principles regarding the impeachment of a witness's credit. Drawing on authorities such as *R v BDX* and *R v Richardson; R v Longman*, the Court noted that a witness may be called to speak to the general reputation for veracity of another witness, and may be asked whether, from their knowledge, they would believe that witness upon their oath. While the impeaching witness cannot give specific reasons for their belief in examination-in-chief, they may be cross-examined on those reasons. The Court found that the question disallowed by the trial judge was permissible under these principles.

Ultimately, the Full Court allowed the appeal. While acknowledging that there was evidence capable of sustaining the guilty verdicts on some counts, the Court ordered a retrial. This decision was based on the cumulative effect of the grounds of appeal, including the erroneous exclusion of evidence concerning the complainant's credibility.