RA v R

The case of RA v R involved the appellant, RA, who was convicted of sexual offences against his step-daughter, the complainant, who was a child at the time of the offences and during the recording of her interview. The trial judge admitted a sound recording of the interview as evidence under the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 (NSW), despite the defence's objection that the complainant was not competent to give evidence at the time of the recording. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sound recording of the complainant's interview was admissible under the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 (NSW) and whether the complainant was competent to give evidence at the time of the recording. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's decision to admit the recording was correct and whether the complainant's competence at the time of the recording was relevant to its admissibility.

The court held that the complainant was presumed to be competent to give evidence at the time she was called to give evidence, and neither the defence nor prosecution carried an onus of proving lack of competence. The court noted that the trial judge had the discretion to inform themselves as they thought fit and to decide whether the complainant was competent to give evidence at the time of the recording. The court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised this discretion and that the recording was admissible under the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 (NSW). The court also noted that the question of the complainant's competence at the time of the recording was not relevant to the admissibility of the recording, as the Act permitted the admission of recordings of interviews with children who were not competent to give evidence at the time of the interview.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of RA. The court noted that the admission of the recording did not affect the reliability or credibility of the evidence and that the jury was properly directed to consider the evidence in light of the complainant's age and the circumstances of the recording.