A tendency warning is not required as a matter of law in every case where a complainant's evidence suggests sexual misconduct occurred on more occasions than those charged. Whether such a warning is necessary depends on the circumstances, including whether there was a significant risk of impermissible tendency reasoning. Where the evidence of other acts is vague and general, and neither party used it for tendency purposes, a direction against substitution of evidence may be sufficient. Rule 4 applies where defence counsel failed to seek the direction at trial and there is no demonstrated miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.