In the s 101(2) balancing exercise for tendency evidence in sexual offence cases involving children, the possibility of the jury having an emotional response to the evidence — a feature common to all such trials — cannot justify exclusion of highly probative tendency evidence. A trial judge must consider the mitigating effect of jury directions on any identified prejudice as part of the s 101(2) analysis; failure to do so constitutes specific error. Where tendency evidence is cross-admissible across all charges, there is no basis for severance of the indictment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.