The Queen v Travis Muller

The applicant, The Queen, sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision of Higgins CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute concerned the competency of a complainant to give unsworn evidence in the trial of the respondent, Travis Muller, who was charged with an act of indecency against the complainant.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the complainant was competent to give unsworn evidence, notwithstanding a finding by the trial judge that the complainant did not understand the nature of an oath. The Court was required to determine the proper interpretation and application of section 13(5) of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT) in relation to a witness's understanding when giving unsworn evidence.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that section 13(5) of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT) does not require a witness to understand the nature of an oath to be competent to give unsworn evidence. Instead, the provision focuses on whether the witness understands that they are required to give truthful evidence. The Court held that a lack of understanding regarding the nature of an oath is not a sufficient basis to find a witness incompetent to give unsworn evidence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the Chief Justice's decision that the complainant was incompetent to give unsworn evidence. The question of the admissibility of the complainant's evidence was remitted to the Chief Justice for determination in accordance with the Court's reasons.