R v Smart

The case of *R v Smart* involved an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, Smart, was convicted of sexual offences. The grounds of appeal raised several alleged errors by the trial judge, including failures to adequately direct the jury regarding the presence of a court companion for a witness, allowing a witness to be accompanied by his wife during evidence, providing written directions containing extraneous material, and the subordination of written directions to oral directions. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge impermissibly questioned him in a manner that could have conveyed doubt about his veracity to the jury.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to provide adequate directions under section 13A of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA) concerning a court companion, by permitting a witness to have his wife present during his evidence, and by providing written jury directions that were flawed in their content and their relationship to the oral directions. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the trial judge's questioning of the appellant during his evidence constituted an impermissible intervention that prejudiced the appellant's case.

The court dismissed the grounds of appeal relating to the trial judge's directions concerning court companions and the content and subordination of written directions. However, permission to appeal was granted on the ground concerning the trial judge's questioning of the appellant. The court found that while the trial judge had directed the witness's wife not to participate in proceedings, and she was not visible to the jury, the specific requirements of section 13 of the *Evidence Act* regarding the visibility of a support person and the warning to the jury were not fully met. Despite this, the court ultimately dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence, indicating that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.