Stuart v The Queen

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, constituted by Mildren, Kelly, and Barr JJ, heard an appeal against a conviction and sentence for sexual offences. The appellant, Stuart, challenged the admissibility of certain evidence given by the complainant and also argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence from the complainant regarding her recollection of events at the age of 13, despite the alleged offences occurring approximately 27 years earlier. This evidence was recorded via a pre-recording and its admissibility was contested at the time of recording and again at trial. The Court was required to consider the application of the "Bolster Rule" and the principles governing the admissibility of evidence of complaint, or lack thereof, in criminal proceedings.

The Court reasoned that evidence of a late complaint, or the reasons for not making an early complaint, is generally not admissible in evidence in chief led by the Crown. Such evidence is considered relevant only to the credit of the witness and, under the Bolster Rule, the Crown cannot lead evidence in chief to bolster the credit of a witness, even if the defence has indicated an intention to attack the witness's credit. While the trial judge admitted the evidence on two bases – to rebut a suggestion of inaccurate recollection and to explain the delay in complaint – the appellate court found that the evidence would not have been relevant or admissible in re-examination as going to the complainant's credit on the question of her true recollection. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal against conviction. The appeal against sentence, however, was allowed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive.