A temporal gap of more than 11 years between alleged sexual offending against different complainants does not necessarily deprive tendency evidence of significant probative value under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), provided there are common features of the offending that link the cases together — such as the accused sexually assaulting teenage girls in bed at night in the same house, despite the risk of detection. The case also confirms that once tendency evidence is found admissible and its probative value substantially outweighs prejudice under s 101(2), there is little basis to rebut the presumption in favour of joint trial under s 194(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.