In sexual offence trials where evidence of prior sexual acts between complainant and accused is led, the trial judge must identify the specific evidence relied upon as relationship evidence, distinguish it from propensity evidence, and direct the jury that propensity evidence can only be used as a step in the chain of proof if the underlying incidents are proved beyond reasonable doubt. A direction that merely tells the jury they may use the wider sexual history to show 'guilty passion or sexual interest' without specifying the required standard of proof is defective. The 'why would the complainant lie' question does not require a specific direction in every case — particularly where the question was not raised by the Crown but arose from the complainant's unresponsive answers during defence cross-examination designed to establish a motive to fabricate.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.