R v S, G

The Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Doyle CJ, White J, and Peek J, considered an application for leave to appeal against a conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse. The applicant had been charged with three counts of this offence against his step-daughter. While the jury directed an acquittal on count 2 and found the applicant not guilty on count 1, they convicted him on count 3. The conviction on count 3 relied on the complainant's evidence and the presence of the applicant's semen on a sheet found on the complainant's bed.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the verdict on count 3 was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, whether it was inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal on the other counts, and whether the prosecutor had contravened section 18(1)(b) of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). The defence argued that the complainant may have fabricated her story to achieve a desire to return to Tasmania, a defence that was not adequately put to the jury by the trial judge.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding the verdict on count 3 to be unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court reasoned that the ability of the semen evidence to implicate the applicant was contingent on the complainant's credibility, which had been undermined during the trial. An innocent explanation for the semen's presence was available: the complainant could have inadvertently placed a sheet on her bed that had previously been used by the applicant in circumstances unrelated to sexual intercourse. The court also noted that the dimensions of the sheet did not preclude it from having been used on the applicant's own bed. Furthermore, the trial judge failed to adequately present the defence's case regarding the sheet to the jury, and the prosecutor had breached section 18(1)(b) of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was substituted.