Evidence of sexual misconduct against different child complainants of similar age, in similar circumstances, and within a similar timeframe has significant probative value for tendency purposes under s 97 ENULA, even without striking similarity or a distinct modus operandi. The risk of improper propensity reasoning by the jury can be accommodated by suitable directions and does not require severance of the indictment where the tendency evidence is cross-admissible.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 27 later cases that cite this judgment.