Written jury directions documents (such as question trails setting out elements of offences) must be read out and explained orally in open court by the trial judge; sending jurors to the jury room to read such documents without oral explanation is insufficient. A trial judge should not comment on how verdicts across multiple counts should logically be consistent, as this is purely a matter for the jury. Under s 293(4)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), a gap of approximately 18 months between prior sexual offences and the charged offences does not satisfy the 'at or about the time' temporal requirement. The disclosure by a complainant to an accused of prior sexual offences committed by a third party does not 'relate to' the relationship between the complainant and the accused for the purposes of s 293(4)(b). The question whether 'sexual experience' under s 293(4)(a)(i) encompasses a continuing state of experience acquired from prior offending (as distinct from the sexual activity itself) was the subject of disagreement between the majority and Beech-Jones CJ at CL.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.