Where the Crown relies on uncharged acts evidence solely for context, the defence effectively leads the evidence for credibility purposes, and the trial judge gives adequate directions confining the evidence to context with anti-substitution and propensity warnings, a beyond reasonable doubt direction for the uncharged acts is not required. The key passages in R v Sadler on this topic are obiter. The forensic purpose for which uncharged acts evidence is led is a significant factor in determining what directions are required. The correctness of Sadler on the beyond reasonable doubt direction for uncharged acts was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.