Where an accused has admitted to a third party a continuing course of sexual offending against the complainant at a time proximate to the charged offences, and the admitted offences are more serious than those charged, no propensity direction is required because the legitimate use of the evidence is more prejudicial than any propensity reasoning. The court also confirmed that an appellate court (but not the jury) may take into account the accused's failure to give evidence when assessing whether a verdict is unsafe on the ground that the Crown could not negative a defence of accident or mistake.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.