R v RM (No 5)

The case of R v RM (No 5) was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The defendant, RM, was charged with 11 alleged sexual offences against his biological daughter. The case involved an application for judicial intervention concerning the Crown's closing address. The application was made on the grounds that the Crown had implied that the explanation for the delay in bringing the complaint could be inferred as an inference that the complainant was lying.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown's comments during its closing address amounted to an impermissible inference that the complainant was lying about the alleged offences. The court was required to distinguish between evidence that related to the probability that the complainant lied and evidence that indicated a motive for lying. The court also needed to consider whether the Crown's comments had the potential to prejudice the jury against the defendant.

The court found that the Crown's comments did not constitute an impermissible inference that the complainant was lying. The court noted that the Crown had not suggested that the delay in reporting the offences was a reason to doubt the complainant's credibility but rather had focused on the improbability of the complainant fabricating such allegations. The court emphasised that a jury was entitled to consider the delay in reporting as part of the overall context in which the evidence was to be assessed. The distinction between the probability that the complainant lied and a motive for lying was critical in the court's reasoning. The court held that the Crown's comments did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial.

In conclusion, the application for judicial intervention was dismissed. The court ruled that the Crown's closing address did not contain any comments that could be considered as an inference that the complainant was lying about the alleged offences. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between evidence relating to the probability that the complainant lied and a motive for lying. The court's decision ensures that the jury is able to consider all relevant evidence in reaching a verdict, while also upholding the defendant's right to a fair trial.