Propensity evidence of prior convictions for online sexual communication with a child persona is not significantly probative of whether an accused physically touched a complainant as alleged, because the prior conduct is qualitatively too different from physical touching. Such evidence may, however, be admissible to prove the indecency element of the offence where indecency is genuinely in dispute. Where defence counsel makes a rational tactical decision not to object to complaint evidence, no miscarriage of justice results from its admission, even if the evidence may not have been admissible as recent complaint. A Palmer direction is not required where the prosecutor's closing address responds to a positive defence case suggesting the complainant had a motive to fabricate, rather than impermissibly inviting the jury to reason from the accused's inability to suggest a motive to lie.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.