Evidence Act 1995 ss 12, 13 — witness competence — 5-year-old child complainant diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and hearing impairment — judge did not err by finding complainant competent to give unsworn evidence — Witness Intermediary Assessment Report indicated complainant able to give evidence if appropriately questioned — question of reliability separate to competence.

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 s 25 — background reports — magistrate erred by sentencing plaintiff without background report — breach of s 25 invalidates sentence — matter remitted to Children’s Court.

Appeal against magistrate’s refusal to hear three sets of charges separately — plaintiff charged with indecent assault offences against three complainants — evidence of each complainant cross-admissible as tendency evidence — court does not have jurisdiction to intervene to disturb magistrate’s refusal of application for separate hearings — applicant has failed to identify a question of law alone or jurisdictional error — leave not granted.

“discreditable conduct evidence” admitted under s 34P(2) Evidence Act 1929 (SA) to show propensity — appellant convicted of five counts of sexual offending against the complainant, his sister — Crown relied on uncharged acts as relationship or context evidence to rebut presumption of doli incapax and to show relationship between appellant and complainant — evidence of other sexual misconduct admissible — probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect to the appellant — appeal dismissed.

Children’s evidence — examination-in-chief given by a complainant in recorded interview with police — witness to be competent at time of interview — trial judge not obliged to direct jury of distinction between sworn and unsworn evidence — no requirement to warn jury of reliability of unsworn evidence s 165(2) Evidence Act 1995 — judge did not err by admitting complainant’s pre-recorded interview — significant advantage in jury seeing and hearing witness — evidence did not give rise to reasonable doubt — appeal allowed and dismissed.

Appeal — exclusion of corroborating evidence by child — respondent charged with multiple offences of assaulting wife — 10-year-old daughter of respondent/victim gave evidence to police — trial judge ruled evidence not relevant — further determination evidence be excluded as probative value substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice — relevance under Evidence Act 1995 to be given wide interpretation — evidence could rationally affect assessment of probability facts in issue under s 55 — judge erred in not assessing probative value of evidence under s 137 — evidence could be tested in court to remove risk of unfair prejudice — held evidence relevant and admissible — appeal allowed.

Young offender — appeal — sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 — offender aged 12 to 13 and complainant aged 4 to 5 — whether trial judge failed to appropriately warn the jury as to the unreliability of the complainant’s evidence — s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 direction — Murray direction — capacity of jury to assess evidence — whether trial judge failed to adequately direct jury as to the burden and standard of proof – whether trial judge failed to adequately direct jury as to the accused’s evidence — whether judge failed to adequately direct jury on question of doli incapax — RP v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 641 considered (see [9-1140]) — whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported by evidence — open to jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt — appeal dismissed.

Young offender — 6-year-old witness — directions — Uniform Evidence Law — competence — s 13 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) (in virtually identical terms to s 13 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)) — pre-trial ruling that young child witness’ evidence be received unsworn — ruling open — Court of Appeal (ACT) erred in holding the trial judge should have directed the jury as to the differences between sworn and unsworn evidence in assessing the reliability of the witness’ evidence — neither the common law nor the Evidence Act required such a direction.

Young offender — murder committed on 21 April 2008 — material discovered subsequent to the exhaustion of the avenues of appeal — application for inquiry into conviction made to Supreme Court pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 — referral to Court of Criminal Appeal under s 79(1)(b) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 — concession by Crown that appeal must succeed and conviction be quashed — new trial should only be ordered where it would more adequately remedy the miscarriage of justice than any other order the Court could make — undertaking by Crown not to call a compromised witness on retrial — evidence of that witness very important in original trial — remaining evidence not capable of proving applicant guilty of murder — detailed analysis of evidence likely to be called at retrial — evidence unlikely to establish guilt of applicant — interests of justice did not require that a new trial be had — verdict of acquittal entered.

Young offender — incest involving biological sister attributed to the respondent when he was aged 16 — prosecution sought to lead other acts of misconduct when he was aged between 11 and 13 as “context evidence” — whether exclusion of “context evidence” would substantially weaken the prosecution case — trial judge ruled against admissibility — whether error in treating presumption of doli incapax as relevant when assessing admissibility of the “uncharged” acts — presumption not relevant in way in which invoked — appeal allowed — matter remitted to trial judge for reconsideration.

Young offender — aggravated breaking and entering — fingerprint left at the scene — challenge to admissibility of fingerprint expert’s conclusion that plaintiff’s fingerprint found at the crime scene — whether admission of expert certificate involved a question of law alone — whether ground involved mixed question of fact and law — whether magistrate’s reasons for admitting certificate inadequate — whether magistrate’s reasons for convicting plaintiff inadequate — complaint not made out — whether magistrate wrongly purported to apply different standard to admission of expert evidence in Children’s Court compared to other courts — complaint not made out that magistrate devolved decision-making task to expert — leave to challenge conviction refused.