A 10-year gap between tendency conduct and charged conduct does not necessarily deprive tendency evidence of significant probative value where the tendency (sexual interest in young teenage boys) is capable of being regarded as enduring. The overriding similarity of an accused exploiting a position of responsibility over young teenage boys may be sufficient notwithstanding differences in the precise circumstances. A trial judge's failure to deliver promised reasons for admitting tendency evidence does not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice where the appellate court can assess admissibility for itself and no procedural unfairness resulted from the absence of reasons.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.