A direction requiring the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of uncharged acts admitted under s 398A of the Evidence Act 1958 (Vic) is not required in every case, but only where there is a real risk of the jury using the evidence as an important step in their process of reasoning to guilt. A propensity warning in the form recommended in R v DCC is preferable but not invariably required; a combination of a separate counts direction and a propensity direction for uncharged acts may suffice depending on the facts, language and context. The probative value of evidence is not to be confused with prejudice, and evidence forming part of the actus reus does not require a propensity direction merely because it may also reflect adversely on the accused's character.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.