The Queen v PDW

The appeal before the Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Martin BR CJ, Riley and Southwood JJ, concerned the conviction of the appellant, PDW, on certain counts of an indictment. The primary dispute revolved around the trial judge's exclusion of evidence intended to impeach the credibility of the complainant.

The court was required to determine two grounds of appeal: firstly, whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and secondly, whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence concerning the complainant's credibility and in the directions given to the jury regarding such evidence. The latter grounds, concerning credibility, were considered together.

The court's reasoning focused on the admissibility of evidence to impeach a witness's veracity. Citing established authorities, including *R v BDX* and *R v Richardson; R v Longman*, the court affirmed that a witness may be called to speak to the general reputation for veracity of another witness, and may be asked whether, from their knowledge, they would believe that witness on oath. Furthermore, an impeaching witness may express their individual opinion as to whether the impugned witness is to be believed on oath, based on personal knowledge. However, in examination-in-chief, the impeaching witness cannot provide the specific facts or incidents forming the basis of their opinion, though these may be explored in cross-examination. The trial judge's disallowance of the question to SW, the complainant's mother, asking whether she would believe the complainant under oath, was therefore considered an error.

Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal. While acknowledging that there was evidence capable of sustaining the guilty verdicts on certain counts, the court found that the exclusion of credibility evidence was a material error. Consequently, the court ordered a retrial.