The fact that tendency evidence arises only from charged acts (rather than uncharged conduct) does not compel exclusion on the basis of circular reasoning. Trial judges are entitled to rely on the effectiveness of jury directions regarding the sequential reasoning process for tendency evidence when assessing prejudicial effect under s 101(2). There remains an open question as to whether 'prejudicial effect' in s 101(2) differs from 'unfair prejudice' in s 137.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.