The majority ([name withheld] and [name withheld]) held that s 50 of the CLCA requires proof of a relationship (not necessarily sexual) between the defendant and complainant in the course of which the unlawful sexual acts occurred, as an element of the offence distinct from the sexual acts themselves. [name withheld] disagreed on this construction but all three judges agreed the proviso would apply where the relationship was undisputed. The level of specificity required in jury directions on cross-admissibility of similarity of account evidence under s 34R varies from case to case; it is not always necessary to descend into the detail of each item of evidence in respect of each count. A sentence of 16 years for persistent sexual abuse not involving penetration, where the offender was 74 with health conditions and had not offended for decades, was manifestly excessive; 13 years substituted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.