The Longman Warning in Queensland: Delay, Forensic Disadvantage and Your Defence
CRIMINAL LAW · TRIALS
The Longman warning in Queensland: delay, forensic disadvantage and your defence
What happens when a criminal allegation is made years - sometimes decades - after the events are said to have occurred? Witnesses may have died or become impossible to locate. Records may have been destroyed. Memories fade on all sides. The law recognises that this kind of delay can place an accused person at a real disadvantage in defending themselves, and in certain cases the trial judge must address it directly with the jury.
01 / WHERE THE WARNING COMES FROM
Where the warning comes from
The principle takes its name from the High Court's decision in Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79. Mr Longman faced allegations of indecent dealing made more than 20 years after the alleged offences. He was convicted, but the High Court held that the jury should have been warned about the difficulty of testing allegations after so long a delay, and ordered a retrial. From that decision grew what practitioners call the Longman warning: a judicial direction alerting the jury to the forensic disadvantage an accused suffers when a long delay has degraded the evidence available to test the allegations.
02 / THE POSITION IN QUEENSLAND TODAY
The position in Queensland today
In Queensland, the modern framework is found in section 132BA of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), which commenced on 15 September 2020. In a trial by jury, where the judge is satisfied that the defendant has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the effects of delay in prosecuting an offence, the judge may give the jury a direction (and need not if there are good reasons not to) - informing them of the nature of that disadvantage and of the need to take it into account when considering the evidence.
Two features of the modern direction matter:
- Delay alone is not enough. The disadvantage must flow from the consequences of the delay - for example, witnesses who have since died or cannot be found, records or physical evidence that no longer exist, or the practical impossibility of establishing an alibi for events decades past. The mere passage of time, without more, does not qualify.
- The direction has limits. Under the current law the judge must not suggest to the jury that it would be dangerous or unsafe to convict, or that the complainant's evidence should be scrutinised with great care - the older, stronger formulation from the original case law. The direction identifies the disadvantage and instructs the jury to weigh it; it does not tell them what verdict to reach.
03 / WHY IT MATTERS IF
Why it matters if you face historical allegations
For anyone accused of offences said to have occurred years ago, forensic disadvantage is not an abstraction - it goes to whether the allegations can fairly be tested at all. Identifying the specific disadvantages in your case, preserving what evidence still exists, and ensuring the jury is properly directed are matters where early advice matters.
Sources: Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132BA; Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79. The law and penalties change from time to time, so please get advice about your own matter before relying on this general information.
05 / SPEAK WITH US
Speak with Aegis Law Group
Facing historical allegations? Call Aegis Law Group on (07) 3709 7610 for confidential advice.
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Get advice on your specific situation.
(07) 3709 7610 BRISBANE OFFICE33 Queen Street, Brisbane


