In multi-complainant sexual offence cases, while evidence of other complainants may be admissible as similar fact evidence on counts involving the principal complainant, the converse does not necessarily follow: the totality of the principal complainant's evidence is not automatically admissible on counts involving other complainants. Where the body of inadmissible evidence is large and potentially prejudicial, separate trials should be ordered under s 597A(1) of the Criminal Code. The mere existence of prejudicial material on the internet, accessible through a search of the accused's name, does not warrant a stay of proceedings absent evidence that any juror actually accessed such material.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.