R v TAM (No 2)

The matter before the court involved a case against the respondent, TAM, who was charged with sexual offences against a child. The crux of the dispute revolved around two main issues: the first was whether the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had breached any disclosure obligations or guidelines when conferencing the child, a matter of significant concern given the child's tender years and the risk of evidence contamination. The second issue pertained to the timing of the alleged offences as specified in the indictment and whether a late change in the dates charged was prejudicial to the accused. This change potentially impacted the defence's ability to secure relevant video evidence, as the altered timeframes coincided with a period for which such evidence was unavailable.

The court meticulously examined the statutory obligations under the Evidence Act, particularly section 93A, to assess whether the DPP had adhered to appropriate guidelines and procedures in preparing the child for testimony. The analysis included a comparative review of statutory disclosure provisions from other jurisdictions, both interstate and international, to contextualise the proper construction of the disclosure obligation in this unique scenario. Additionally, the court deliberated on the impact of the altered indictment dates on the accused's rights, focusing on whether the amendment unfairly prejudiced the defence by limiting their opportunity to obtain crucial security video evidence.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the DPP had not breached any statutory obligations or proper procedures in conferencing the child. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the child was deemed admissible. Regarding the indictment dates, the court found that the proposed amendment was prejudicial to the accused, as it hindered their ability to gather relevant evidence and thereby compromised the fairness of the trial. The court ultimately denied the application to amend the indictment dates and to further examine the child complainant. As a result, the indictment presented on 28 January 2011 was stayed, pending further instructions.