A propensity warning need not follow the precise terms of the Bench Book direction where the trial judge's directions, read as a whole, effectively convey the substance of the warning against propensity reasoning. Where the real issue in an indecent dealing case is whether touching was intentional and for sexual gratification rather than accidental, a direction framed in terms of intent versus accident is adequate and a s 23(1)(b) direction involving foreseeability is neither required nor helpful. Stevens v The Queen is distinguishable from cases where the possibility of accident is addressed through directions on intent and sexual gratification.
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.