The presumption of doli incapax does not render inadmissible evidence of sexual misconduct committed by a child under 14 when that evidence is led as context evidence in relation to later charged offences. The relevance of such uncharged acts is to be assessed from the perspective of the victim, not through the prism of the accused's criminal responsibility. The passage in IMM v The Queen at [62] concerning the limited probative value of unsupported complainant evidence of uncharged acts is directed to tendency evidence, not context evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.