R v Taylor (No 2)

The appellant, Taylor, was convicted by a jury of a sexual offence, and he appeals against his conviction. The dispute arose from an alleged incident which occurred in 2007, but the complaint was not made until 2012. The appeal was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal.

The court was required to decide whether the delay in making the complaint was relevant to the admissibility of the evidence and whether the trial judge had adequately warned the jury about the potential unreliability of the evidence due to the delay. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge had properly directed the jury in accordance with the Kilby direction and whether the Longman warning was sufficient.

The court found that the delay in making the complaint was relevant to the admissibility of the evidence and that the trial judge had not adequately warned the jury about the potential unreliability of the evidence due to the delay. The court held that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury in accordance with the Kilby direction and that the Longman warning was not sufficient. The court held that the appeal should be allowed, and the conviction quashed. The court found that the delay in making the complaint went to the credibility of the complainant and the weight to be given to her evidence, rather than its admissibility. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately warned the jury about the potential unreliability of the evidence due to the delay, and that this was a significant error.

The court ordered that the conviction be quashed and a retrial ordered. The court held that the delay in making the complaint was a significant factor that went to the credibility of the complainant and the weight to be given to her evidence. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately warned the jury about the potential unreliability of the evidence due to the delay, and that this was a significant error. The court held that the Kilby direction was not properly applied, and that the Longman warning was not sufficient. The court held that the appeal should be allowed, and the conviction quashed, and ordered a retrial.