A tendency direction that identifies the alleged tendency in precisely the same terms as the acts constituting the charged offences, and which groups the conduct against multiple complainants together without differentiation, is erroneous and misleading. Such a direction fails to achieve its purpose of enabling the jury to use acceptance of one complainant's evidence to support acceptance of the other's. Where the complainants' credibility on the critical disputed issues has been seriously challenged and there is no body of objective evidence supporting those disputed aspects, the proviso cannot be applied because the appellate court cannot assess credibility on the record.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.