Evidence of uncharged acts expressed in such general terms that the nature of the incidents is not defined directly or implicitly is inadmissible as tendency evidence because a rational jury could not regard it as having material weight. However, where uncharged act evidence has sufficient specificity as to the nature of the conduct, it may be admissible even if vague as to time. For cross-admissibility between complainants in intra-familial sexual offence cases, sufficient underlying unity may be established by the combination of the nature of the offending, surrounding circumstances, and the way the accused took advantage of the setting, without requiring striking or remarkable similarity. A subsequent prosecution for sexual offences not known to the Crown at the time of an earlier prosecution is not oppressive merely because the accused previously pleaded guilty to a related offence against the same complainant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.