An anti-propensity direction is not required in every case where context evidence is admitted in a sex offence trial. The risk of impermissible propensity reasoning must be assessed by reference to the vagueness of the evidence, the State's articulation of its limited use, the trial judge's directions on permissible use, the emphasis given to the evidence at trial, and whether experienced defence counsel sought such a direction. Where context evidence is vague, the State clearly limits its use, and the trial judge gives precise directions on permissible use, the absence of an express anti-propensity direction does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.