In the context of charges of sexual offending against a child, evidence of uncharged acts led to show that the accused had a sexual interest in the complainant is, generally at least, liable to give rise to a real risk of propensity reasoning. The theoretical distinction between using such evidence to show motive and using it as propensity evidence cannot practically be maintained. A direction that uncharged acts evidence cannot prove guilt 'by itself' is insufficient to prevent propensity reasoning, as it merely precludes sole reliance on that evidence. Where uncharged acts occurred after the charged offences, they cannot logically be used to explain the complainant's failure to complain or the accused's confidence to offend.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.