Expert Witnesses and Battered Women—The Lighthouse Flashes!

The recent decision of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Runjanjic and Kontinnen' deals with a variety of matters which deserve to be canvassed beyond its jurisdiction of origin and, indeed, its country of origin at large. Quite apart from its immediate subject-matter, which is of intrinsic interest itself, the case illustrates the need for a generally broader awareness of developments in the law of evidence across common law boundaries. It is clear, for example, that the decision of the House of Lords in R v p3 has demonstrated a wholly different attitude towards the reception of similar fact evidence from that to be found in decisions of the High Court of Australia." Runjanjic and Kontinnen is also notable for its reliance on authorities from elsewhere than Australia. The far from edifying facts in the case at hand were that both of the women accused had had sexual relationships with one H. Both of these relationships were characterised by a domineering attitude towards them and continual violence. The facts which eventually gave rise to the present prosecution and subsequent appeals were that all three protagonists lured the woman victim to a particular house so that H might violently interrogate her regarding some allegedly stolen property. The victim was detained and severely beaten. Both appellants were convicted of false imprisonment and causing grievous bodily harm with intent." In defence, it was argued that the two women were not party to any plan involving violence or imprisonment and that H's violence was not anticipated by them. Alternatively, they claimed that they had been subjected to duress. Their specific grounds of appeal were, first, that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory; secondly, and more particularly, that the judge had wrongly refused to admit certain specific expert evidence.