When an accused adduces tendency evidence about the alleged victim, the jury must not be directed to exercise caution before drawing inferences from that evidence, must not be told to apply a 'more likely than not' standard, and must not have tendency evidence directions tied to circumstantial evidence directions requiring exclusion of all other rational inferences. Such directions effectively reverse the onus of proof. The proviso will not be applied where self-defence is not eliminated beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence, particularly where the appellate court did not see the witnesses and the prosecution case was not overwhelming.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.