Where the asserted tendency is formulated as a sexual interest in a specific complainant, evidence of uncharged acts directed at a class of persons (rather than the complainant specifically) may lack significant probative value under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act, particularly where the uncharged acts are of a significantly different order of gravity from the charged offending. The formulation of the tendency is critical: evidence that supports only a general tendency expressed at a high level of generality may establish no more than relevance and fail to meet the threshold of 'significant' probative value. The question whether alleged lies are capable of supporting an inference of consciousness of guilt is for the jury, not the trial judge, provided the evidence has the capability of passing the Edwards tests.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.