Where a complainant's evidence of sexual offending is expressed in generalised terms describing what the accused 'would' do or what the 'normal routine was', without distinguishing one offending act or occasion from another, that evidence is incapable of establishing the individual 'occasions' required by s 47A(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). A trial judge who directs the jury that such generalised evidence can found a finding of qualifying offences commits a fundamental error that renders the verdict opaque and precludes application of the proviso.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.