Evidence of an accused's sexual interest in a complainant, demonstrated by persistent unwanted contact and taking intimate photographs without consent, can be admissible propensity evidence to prove absence of consent in a rape case, even where the only contested element is consent rather than the act of penetration. Such evidence is not limited to proving that the accused committed the physical act; it can rationally support the inference that the act was committed without consent by providing a basis for rejecting the accused's account and supporting the complainant's account of the circumstances. A trial direction identifying the permissible use and instructing the jury not to use the evidence 'in some other way' may be sufficient to guard against impermissible propensity reasoning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.