Evidence of an accused's possession of child pornography may be admissible for the limited purpose of rebutting the accused's claims in a police interview that he was only interested in adult women, provided the actual images are not shown to the jury and appropriate directions are given. Such evidence is not admissible as tendency evidence to show a general sexual interest in children. Under s 47A of the Crimes Act 1958, a child complainant's use of the word 'would' does not necessarily describe only a course of conduct; it may refer to a specific past event, and the jury is entitled to interpret the evidence in context. Where at least three occasions of abuse are sufficiently particularised, the fact that additional inadequately particularised occasions were also left to the jury does not require the verdict to be set aside.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.