Where tendency evidence in a multi-complainant sexual offence case involves a stark imbalance in the gravity of offending alleged by different complainants, the probative value of the more serious complainant's evidence may not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) in relation to the less serious charges, even where a protective direction is given. In such cases, the imbalance may be so extreme that no judicial direction can sufficiently ameliorate the risk of unfair prejudice. A single separate tendency direction remains generally appropriate where one tendency is cross-admissible on all charges in a multi-complainant indictment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.