R v T, S

The appellant, R, was convicted by a jury of two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 12 years. He appealed his convictions to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, raising several grounds of appeal including alleged misdirections regarding the standard of proof, the use of prior inconsistent statements, the forensic disadvantage arising from the delay in the complainant's initial complaint, and the use of evidence of initial complaint. The appellant also contended that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the non-disclosure of fresh evidence concerning prior inconsistent statements made by a witness to whom the complainant first complained, and that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds except one concerning the admission of evidence of initial complaint, the determination of which was referred to the substantive appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on the standard of proof were adequate, particularly in the context of an "oath against oath" scenario, and whether the non-direction or misdirection on certain evidentiary matters, including the use of prior inconsistent statements and the impact of delayed complaint, constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Court was also required to consider whether the verdicts were unreasonable and whether the non-disclosure of fresh evidence warranted a new trial.

The Court allowed the appeal on the basis of ground 7, which related to the unreasonableness of the verdicts. While the Court considered the trial judge's directions on the standard of proof and found that they did not necessarily invite sequential reasoning or place an improper burden on the appellant, it ultimately determined that the appeal should succeed on other grounds. The Court refused permission to appeal on ground 5, concerning the admission of evidence of initial complaint.

The Court set aside the convictions and ordered a retrial. The decision to order a retrial was based on the finding that the appeal should be allowed on ground 7. The Court noted that the necessity for specific directions on retrial would depend on how the evidence unfolded.