Background
After a four-day jury trial in the District Court at Emerald, RBU was convicted of four sexual offences against two complainants, S and K. S was his stepdaughter and K his biological daughter; each was a child when the relevant offending occurred. The alleged conduct extended over a lengthy period from 1992 to 2014.
The prosecution depended principally on the jury accepting the complainants as credible and reliable witnesses. Their accounts were also used as similar-fact evidence, and several witnesses testified about preliminary complaints made by S and K. RBU denied that any sexual abuse had occurred and argued that the allegations were fabricated. His sole appeal ground challenged the trial judge’s directions concerning the jury’s use of the preliminary-complaint evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that part of the trial judge’s direction was legally erroneous. Evidence of a preliminary complaint was not evidence of the alleged facts and, when used affirmatively by the prosecution, consistency with a complainant’s trial evidence could bolster the complainant’s credibility but could not enhance the reliability or accuracy of the complainant’s account. By suggesting that consistency could help the jury decide whether an account was “accurate” and “true,” the direction permitted an impermissible use of the evidence.
The error was not material and did not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice. Most of the preliminary complaints were general and lacked enough detail realistically to enhance the reliability of either complainant’s specific account; one more detailed complaint concerning K was materially inconsistent with her trial evidence. Considering the evidence, the way the defence case was conducted, and the summing-up as a whole—including correct directions that the complaints did not independently prove the alleged conduct—the Court concluded that the misdirection could not realistically have affected the guilty verdicts. The appeal was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Consistency between preliminary-complaint evidence and a complainant’s testimony may support credibility, but it cannot be used to establish that the testimony is accurate or reliable.
- A legally erroneous jury direction warrants relief only if it is material when assessed against the evidence, the issues at trial, and the summing-up as a whole.
- General, non-specific disclosures were incapable in this case of materially strengthening the reliability of the complainants’ detailed accounts.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the distinct roles of credibility and reliability when Queensland juries consider preliminary complaints in sexual-offence trials. Trial judges must explain that consistency may support a complainant’s truthfulness, while avoiding language that treats the complaint as confirmation of the accuracy of the alleged events.
It also illustrates the appellate court’s materiality inquiry: identifying a misdirection does not by itself require convictions to be set aside. The practical capacity of the error to affect the jury’s reasoning remains decisive.