In South Australia, trial judges should continue to apply R v Nieterink and R v IK when directing juries on uncharged acts in sexual offence cases: beyond reasonable doubt proof is not required for uncharged acts used as circumstantial evidence that do not constitute an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning to guilt. However, the Court is divided on this point, with Debelle J and Sulan J favouring a requirement of beyond reasonable doubt proof where charged and uncharged acts are intertwined. The question remains open pending High Court resolution.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.