There is no universal rule requiring an anti-tendency direction whenever multiple counts of sexual assault involving different victims are tried together without tendency evidence being admitted. Whether such a direction is required depends on an assessment of the risk of the jury engaging in impermissible tendency reasoning, having regard to the conduct of the case, other directions given (including separate consideration and Murray directions), and the deliberate failure of defence counsel to seek such a direction. A Murray direction combined with a separate consideration direction may sufficiently diminish the risk of tendency reasoning such that no anti-tendency direction is required. The preparation of the summing up remains the trial judge's responsibility and cannot be delegated to counsel.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 23 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 23 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.