R v WB

In the case of R v WB, the accused faced charges of sexual offences against the complainant, who was a child at the time of the alleged events. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the primary issue was whether the evidence presented by the complainant, who had only come forward two years and seven months after the alleged incidents, was reliable and admissible. Furthermore, the court had to consider the implications of the complainant’s testimony, which was based on memories recovered through hypnotherapy, and whether the trial judge had adequately cautioned the jury about the inherent dangers in such testimony.

The legal issues centred on the admissibility of a delayed complaint and the reliability of memory recovered by hypnotherapy. The court was required to determine if the delayed complaint could be considered a recent complaint, which is crucial for such evidence to be admissible in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury regarding the potential unreliability of hypnotherapy-recovered memories.

The Supreme Court found that the complainant's delayed report could not be deemed a recent complaint, as the length of time between the alleged events and the complaint created a significant forensic disadvantage to the accused. Moreover, the court held that the judge had failed to warn the jury about the dangers of accepting testimony based on hypnotherapy-recovered memories. Consequently, these errors led to the conclusion that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court ordered a retrial, emphasising the necessity for proper judicial direction on these specific points to ensure a fair trial.