Evidence of possession of child exploitation material does not generally have significant probative value in proving that an accused physically committed contact sexual offences against children, because such evidence demonstrates only a sexual interest and a tendency to manifest it by downloading material, not a tendency to act by physical contact. However, where specific features of the CEM evidence (such as internet search terms) have a strikingly specific resonance with the circumstances of the charged offending, those specific features may have significant probative value in proving the charged acts. Where propensity evidence is admissible for a limited purpose only, the trial judge must direct the jury on both the permissible and impermissible uses of the evidence, and failure to do so will ordinarily occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.