R v RAG

The case involved an appeal by the Crown against a decision that a complainant, a child, was not competent to give unsworn evidence. The trial judge had determined that the child was unable to understand the nature and consequences of an oath and, therefore, could not give sworn evidence. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The key issue for the court was whether the decision regarding the competency of the complainant to give unsworn evidence constituted an interlocutory judgment or order under section 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The court also had to determine the criteria for assessing the competency of a child witness under section 13(2) of the Evidence Act 1995, particularly in relation to age-appropriate language and understanding the consequences of an oath.

The court found that the decision on the competency of the child to give unsworn evidence did not constitute an interlocutory judgment or order. The court further held that the trial judge should have considered the child's understanding of the concept of an oath and the consequences of lying under oath in age-appropriate language. The court emphasised the importance of assessing the child's capacity to understand the nature and consequences of an oath, rather than simply their ability to recite it. The court concluded that the trial judge's determination was based on insufficient inquiry into the child's understanding and did not adequately consider the child's capacity to comprehend the oath in a manner appropriate to their age.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court for reconsideration of the child's competency to give evidence. The court ordered that the District Court should reassess the child's understanding of the oath and the consequences of lying under oath, using age-appropriate language, and determine whether the child was competent to give sworn evidence. The court underscored the need for a thorough and appropriate inquiry into the child's capacity to understand the oath and its consequences, ensuring that the inquiry was tailored to the child's age and cognitive abilities. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of conducting a proper assessment of a child's competency to give evidence, taking into account their developmental stage and understanding of the oath.