21.10.2010
Recommendation 28–1 Federal, state and territory legislation should prohibit a judge in any sexual assault proceedings from:
(a) warning a jury, or making any suggestion to a jury, that complainants as a class are unreliable witnesses; and
(b) giving a general warning to a jury of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of any complainant or witness who is a child.
Recommendation 28–2 Australian courts and judicial education bodies should provide judicial education and training, and prepare material for incorporation in bench books, to assist judges to identify the circumstances in which a warning about the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a particular complainant or child witness is in the interests of justice.
Recommendation 28–3 State and territory legislation should provide, consistently with s 165B of the uniform Evidence Acts, that:
(a) if the court, on application by the defendant, is satisfied that the defendant has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the consequences of delay, the court must inform the jury of the nature of the disadvantage and the need to take that disadvantage into account when considering the evidence;
(b) the judge need not comply with (a) if there are good reasons for not doing so; and
(c) no particular form of words needs to be used in giving the warning pursuant to (a), but in warning the jury, the judge should not suggest that it is ‘dangerous to convict’ because of any demonstrated forensic disadvantage.
Recommendation 28–4 Federal, state and territory legislation should provide that, in sexual assault proceedings:
(a) the effect of any delay in complaint, or absence of complaint, on the credibility of the complainant should be a matter for argument by counsel and for determination by the jury;
(b) subject to paragraph (c), except for identifying the issue for the jury and the competing contentions of counsel, the judge must not give a direction regarding the effect of delay in complaint, or absence of complaint, on the credibility of the complainant, unless satisfied it is necessary to do so in order to ensure a fair trial; and
(c) if evidence is given, a question is asked, or a comment is made that tends to suggest that the victim either delayed making, or failed to make, a complaint in respect of the offence, the judge must tell the jury that there may be good reasons why a victim of a sexual offence may delay making or fail to make a complaint.
Recommendation 28–5 Federal, state and territory legislation should:
(a) prohibit an unrepresented defendant from personally cross-examining any complainant, child witness or other vulnerable witness in sexual assault proceedings; and
(b)provide that an unrepresented defendant be permitted to cross-examine the complainant through a person appointed by the court to ask questions on behalf of the defendant.
Recommendation 28–6 Federal, state and territory legislation should permit prosecutors to tender a record of the original evidence of the complainant in any re-trial ordered on appeal.