Evidence that an accused is an alcoholic is not reasonably capable of giving rise to propensity reasoning that the accused was the kind of person likely to commit sexual offences against a child. The possible effect of alcohol upon memory is a matter within the jury's common sense and does not require expert evidence. A direction that the jury should not reason from alcoholism to guilt is adequate to meet the objective of a propensity direction in such circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.