Propensity reasoning encompasses not only reasoning that the accused is a 'type of person' likely to offend, but also reasoning that because the accused did something similar on another occasion, the charged conduct is more likely to have occurred. Other conduct evidence cannot be used to render the charged conduct itself more plausible on the basis of similarity, even if framed as assisting the evaluation of a witness's credibility. In assessing joinder under cl 7(3)(a) of the CPA, the identity of the alleged offenders is a relevant factor, and offences of fundamentally different character (consensual adult sexual conduct in the presence of children versus direct sexual abuse of children) may not form a 'series of offences of a similar character' even where all involve sexual offending against children of the same family.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.