The Queen v BM

In the matter of The Queen v BM, the appellant faced charges related to sexual offences. The case involved applications to exclude certain recorded statements and to conduct a special sitting for the complainant's evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether the Crown's request for a special sitting should be granted and whether certain pieces of evidence should be excluded due to concerns about their reliability and probative value. The appellant argued that the recorded statements were of poor quality, misleading, and unfairly prejudicial, and that their probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The Crown, on the other hand, sought a special sitting to allow the complainant to give evidence.

The court considered whether there were good reasons to decline the application for a special sitting. The appellant's counsel argued that the deficiencies in the recorded statements, such as the lack of an interpreter, support person, and intermediary, as well as the failure to follow best practice procedures, diminished the probative value of the evidence. Counsel submitted that the special sitting would amount to an abuse of process and facilitate the prosecution, especially given the multiple recorded statements. The Crown contended that the deficiencies did not amount to good reasons for not holding a special sitting, and that the special sitting would facilitate the prosecution. The court was also required to consider whether the evidence of the complainant should be excluded due to its prejudicial nature.

The court found that the deficiencies in the recorded statements, while relevant, did not constitute good reasons for not holding a special sitting. The court determined that the special sitting would not be an abuse of process and would facilitate the prosecution. The court also found that the proposed evidence of the complainant was not excluded, as it was not misleading, confusing, or unfairly prejudicial. However, the court did exclude certain evidence related to the identity of the accused, such as the record of the interview between the police and the accused, as it was deemed unreliable under the Anunga Guidelines.

The court's decision allowed the Crown to proceed with a special sitting for the complainant's evidence, while excluding certain prejudicial evidence related to the identity of the accused. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of good reasons for not holding a special sitting and the probative value of the complainant's evidence outweighing any potential unfair prejudice. The final orders of the court were that the Crown's application for a special sitting be granted, and that certain evidence related to the identity of the accused be excluded.