The case confirms that where an indictment contains multiple counts of sexual offending and the jury returns mixed verdicts, the existence of evidence specific to one count (such as a photograph) that does not apply to other counts can provide a rational explanation for differing verdicts. The case also illustrates the application of Hamilton v The Queen to the question of whether trial counsel's failure to seek an anti-tendency direction regarding bad character evidence constitutes a miscarriage of justice, with the majority holding that such failure may reflect a legitimate forensic choice where the defence case is based on attacking the complainant's credibility. The dissent of Ierace J highlights that the inference of forensic choice is not available where the trial transcript does not support it and where the extraneous allegations could not rationally assist the defence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.