Impermissible cross-examination asking an accused whether complainants are lying may be cured by firm and clear judicial directions, particularly where the questioning was brief, the judge intervened promptly, and the prosecutor disavowed and apologised for the questions. A single prior instance of sexual offending can constitute tendency evidence of significant probative value under s 97(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) where the conduct displays sufficient 'peculiarity' — including exploitation of a parental/care relationship, offending in the course of purported therapeutic acts, and creating the opportunity for offending. The majority and dissent disagreed on the degree of peculiarity required and the adequacy of curative directions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.