After section 165 of the Principal Act , the following sections are inserted in Part 5:

165A.     Warnings in relation to children's evidence

(1)  A judge in any proceeding in which evidence is given by a child before a jury must not do any of the following:

(a) warn the jury, or suggest to the jury, that children as a class are unreliable witnesses;

(b) warn the jury, or suggest to the jury, that the evidence of children as a class is inherently less credible or reliable, or requires more careful scrutiny, than the evidence of adults;

(c) give a warning, or suggestion to the jury, about the unreliability of the particular child's evidence solely on account of the age of the child;

(d) in the case of a criminal proceeding, give a general warning to the jury of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a witness who is a child.

(2)  Subsection (1) does not prevent the judge, at the request of a party, from –

(a) informing the jury that the evidence of the particular child may be unreliable and the reasons why it may be unreliable; and

(b) warning or informing the jury of the need for caution in determining whether to accept the evidence of the particular child and the weight to be given to it –

if the party has satisfied the court that there are circumstances (other than solely the age of the child) particular to the child that affect the reliability of the child's evidence and that warrant the giving of a warning or the information.

(3)  This section does not affect any other power of a judge to give a warning to, or to inform, the jury.

165B.     Delay in prosecution

(1)  This section applies in a criminal proceeding in which there is a jury.

(2)  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 that disadvantage and the need to take that disadvantage into account when considering the evidence.

(3)  The judge need not comply with subsection (2) if there are good reasons for not doing so.

(4)  It is not necessary that a particular form of words be used in informing the jury of the nature of the significant forensic disadvantage suffered and the need to take that disadvantage into account, but the judge must not in any way suggest to the jury that it would be dangerous or unsafe to convict the defendant solely because of the delay or the forensic disadvantage suffered because of the consequences of the delay.

(5)  The judge must not warn or inform the jury about any forensic disadvantage the defendant may have suffered because of delay except in accordance with this section, but this section does not affect any other power of the judge to give any warning to, or to inform, the jury.

(6)  For the purposes of this section –

(a) delay includes delay between the alleged offence and its being reported; and

(b) significant forensic disadvantage is not to be regarded as being established by the mere existence of a delay.