Evidence of conduct by an accused that is consistent with both the prosecution and defence cases (such as telephone calls and visits) is not thereby rendered incapable of corroborating a complainant's evidence of sexual offending; the question whether such evidence in fact corroborates is for the jury. Independent corroborative evidence does not attract a propensity warning. When sentencing a serious sexual offender under s 6D of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), a judge who imposes sentences disproportionate to the gravity of the offending for community protection purposes must provide adequate reasons for doing so.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.