Where relationship evidence is admitted in sexual assault trials, the Crown prosecutor must confine cross-examination of the accused to the general level foreshadowed when admissibility was argued; detailed questioning about the specifics of prior incidents is impermissible where the accused has not given evidence-in-chief contradicting the complainant's account of those events. A tendency warning using the word 'merely' (e.g., 'you cannot convict merely because of prior conduct') is inadequate because it permits the jury to combine relationship evidence with other evidence for impermissible tendency reasoning. When directing on consent across multiple groups of offences, the trial judge must make clear that evidence from later offences cannot be used when considering consent on earlier counts. On sentencing, sexual intercourse offences involving the simplest form of non-consensual intercourse, where the complainant knew the offender and others were nearby, do not reach the mid-point of objective seriousness under ss 61I or 61J.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.