Weragoda v The Queen

The Supreme Court of South Australia, in a decision by the Full Court, considered an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for a sexual offence. The complainant, a young woman residing at the appellant's house, alleged that the appellant had sexually assaulted her. The dispute centred on the directions given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the complainant's evidence and the admission of certain evidence.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the trial judge had erred by failing to give a warning to the jury regarding the necessity of closely scrutinising the complainant's evidence, whether the directions on the reliability of her evidence were appropriate, and whether the judge adequately directed the jury concerning the complaint evidence under section 34M of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). A further issue concerned the admission of a record of interview and the directions given to the jury regarding its use.

The Court reasoned that the circumstances of the trial did not necessitate a specific warning about close scrutiny of the complainant's evidence, as the judge had provided appropriate directions on credibility, which was the central forensic issue. The Court found that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury in relation to the complaint evidence, as required by section 34M of the *Evidence Act*, particularly concerning the consistency of the complainant's conduct. Regarding the record of interview, the Court held that its admission was a considered forensic decision by the appellant's trial counsel, and the appellant was bound by that decision. The trial judge's directions on the proper use of this evidence were deemed clear and appropriate.

Consequently, the Full Court refused permission to appeal on grounds 1, 2, and 4, dismissed ground 3, and ultimately dismissed the appeal.