In sexual offence cases involving relationship/propensity evidence, it is not necessary in every case to direct the jury that they must not reason that the accused was the kind of person likely to have committed the charged offence. Relationship evidence is propensity evidence and the jury may use it as such, provided it has a specific connection with the commission of the offence charged. The minimum requirements for a direction on relationship evidence are: (1) the jury may have regard to the evidence only if they find it reliable and believe it to be true; (2) the evidence is relevant only to show the nature of the relationship so as to place the charged conduct in context; and (3) the evidence is not direct evidence of the offence charged. Where there is evidentiary overlap between counts involving different complainants (such as res gestae evidence from a single incident involving both), severance is not required even though the evidence does not qualify as similar fact evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 33 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 33 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.