Suresh v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Kunnakatil Suresh against his conviction for sexual offences. The central issue revolved around the admissibility and effect of evidence of complaints made by the complainant, a young girl, to her school friends. The alleged offences occurred between December 1990 and March 1992, but the complainant did not report them until approximately October 1992, about seven months after the last alleged offence. Crucially, when she did complain, she did not identify the appellant by name, referring only to an "uncle".

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the evidence of the complainant's complaints was admissible as "recent complaint" evidence, given the significant delay and the lack of specific identification of the appellant. The court also had to consider the impact of admitting such evidence on the appellant's chance of a fair acquittal, particularly if the evidence was wrongly admitted, and whether the proviso to the Criminal Code could apply to uphold the conviction. The court also examined the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of this complaint evidence.

The High Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal. While there was division in the Court of Criminal Appeal regarding the admissibility of the complaint evidence due to the delay and lack of identification, the majority in the High Court ultimately found that the admission of the evidence, even if irregular, did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. This was partly because the defence at trial had not objected to the evidence and had, in fact, used the complainant's delay in complaining as a strategic point to challenge her credibility. The court noted that the trial judge's directions to the jury had emphasised the importance of the complainant's credibility and the delay in her complaint, which may have mitigated any prejudicial effect of the complaint evidence itself.

The appeal was dismissed.