Tendency evidence against adolescent accused persons requires considerable caution because the predictability of repetition in adolescent behaviour is significantly less reliable than in mature adults, given the dynamic and volatile nature of adolescent brain development. In identification cases where the accused is one of several possible perpetrators in a group attack, tendency evidence concerning only the accused does not have significant probative value absent evidence excluding like tendencies in the other possible perpetrators. Post-offence conduct occurring while an accused is on bail and subject to the stress of unresolved charges has reduced predictive capacity for tendency purposes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.