Where propensity evidence in sexual offence cases discloses a pattern of systematic exploitation of victims in similar circumstances, the improbability of coincidence may be sufficient to render the evidence admissible under s 398A(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 even without striking similarity, particularly where the question is whether a crime was committed rather than the identity of the offender. Evidence that an accused may become unfit during the course of a trial does not, without more, raise a 'real and substantial question' as to fitness under s 9(1) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.