In multi-complainant sexual offence trials in South Australia, trial judges must give directions under s 34R that explicitly differentiate between similarity of account reasoning and propensity reasoning, and explain the permissible uses of cross-admissible evidence rather than merely listing similarities. Evidence of limited offending against one complainant may be inadmissible in the trial of more extensive offending against other complainants where the probative value as propensity evidence is weak and there is an appreciable risk of impermissible 'bad person' reasoning that cannot be adequately guarded against by directions. A trial judge is not required to raise s 34P admissibility issues absent objection from the parties.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
16 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.