• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The accused faced four counts of committing an act of indecency upon a person under 16, two counts of incest, and a transferred charge of common assault [2]. The judgment describes the complainant as the accused’s younger sister, aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the alleged offending. It records the accused’s age as between 18 and 19 [2].

The prosecution’s proposed tendency evidence included the six allegations on the indictment and another 48 alleged incidents [3]. The uncharged allegations included touching the complainant’s breasts, buttocks and inner thigh; watching her shower or get dressed; attempted “humping”; trying to pull down her pants; and sexual gestures [3]. These are allegations described in the judgment, not findings that the conduct occurred.

The prosecution notified a tendency that the accused had a sexual interest in the complainant, and further asserted tendencies concerning how the accused allegedly acted on that interest. Those included committing indecent acts, digitally penetrating the complainant, and acting in a childish manner and speaking in a high-pitched childish tone when acting on the interest [4]. The prosecution said that not every incident supported every tendency and that not every tendency related to every count [5]-[6].

The accused did not object to admitting the tendency evidence or to its use for tendency purposes [9]. The Court ordered that all incidents, charged and uncharged, in the application were admissible as tendency evidence [10]. This was a preliminary evidentiary decision. It did not determine the truth of the allegations or the accused’s guilt [7], [10].

Why the court decided this way

The Court stated the applicable test in paragraph 8: where appropriate notice is given, tendency evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings if it has significant probative value and that probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. It also set out the statutory presumption in s 97A(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). As described in the reasons, that provision presumes significant probative value for specified evidence about a defendant’s sexual interest in children, including an interest on which the defendant has not acted, or about acting on such an interest, for the purposes of ss 97(1)(b) and 101(2) [8].

The Court’s application of that framework was concise. It described the incidents as being of a similar character, involving the same complainant, and occurring within a limited fourteen-month period [9]. It cited R v Bauer [2018] HCA 40; 266 CLR 56 at [48], [50] and [60] in connection with that assessment [9]. The judgment does not set out the content of those passages from Bauer, so the decision’s stated reasoning should not be expanded beyond the citation and the factors Baker J expressly identified.

The Court found significant probative value in the evidence for the notified tendency that the accused had a sexual interest in the complainant [9]. It then addressed unfair prejudice, concluding that the probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice, while noting that the trial judge would give careful directions about the permissible tendency reasoning [9]. The reasons do not specify the wording or content of those directions.

The ruling was not an incident-by-incident determination about which alleged event supported which tendency. The prosecution acknowledged limits on the relationship between incidents, tendencies and counts [5]-[6]. The parties agreed that it was unnecessary to resolve those details at this stage, and the Court accepted that approach [7]. The order therefore establishes the admissibility of the identified incidents as tendency evidence, but does not, on the face of the reasons, decide every question about the eventual use of particular incidents in relation to individual counts.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not announce a change to the law or formulate a new general test. It applies the statutory framework it describes in s 97A(2), read with the general admissibility requirements identified in paragraph 8: significant probative value and a balance favouring admission over the danger of unfair prejudice [8].

Before the ruling, the prosecution had given notice of its proposed tendency evidence and sought a preliminary order confirming admissibility [1]. The accused did not oppose admission [9]. After the ruling, the charged and uncharged incidents in the application were admissible as tendency evidence in these proceedings [10]. The reasons do not say that the evidence was thereby proved, nor do they determine what weight a jury should ultimately give it.

The judgment highlights several features of the evidentiary material relevant to its conclusion: similarity of character, the same complainant, a limited fourteen-month period, and significant probative value for the specified sexual-interest tendency [9]. It also expressly acknowledges that the statutory test requires attention to unfair prejudice, and records the Court’s conclusion that the probative value outweighed that danger, with careful directions contemplated [9].

The decision should therefore be read as a case-specific application of the statutory provisions as the Court described them, not as a general ruling that evidence of this kind is automatically admissible whenever a complainant is under 16 or incidents are similar. The judgment’s own reasoning includes both the significant-probative-value assessment and the unfair-prejudice balance [8]-[9].

Key passages with plain-English translation

Paragraph 8 states the general admissibility test: tendency evidence may be admitted where appropriate notice is given, it has significant probative value, and that value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice. In plain English, the Court had to consider both what the evidence could meaningfully prove for a tendency purpose and the risk that it could unfairly affect the jury’s assessment.

The same paragraph summarises s 97A(2). The provision, as described by Baker J, presumes significant probative value for specified evidence about a defendant’s sexual interest in children or acting on that interest, for the purposes of the identified statutory provisions [8]. The reasons do not treat that statutory presumption as eliminating the need to consider unfair prejudice: paragraph 9 separately addresses that balance.

Paragraph 9 identifies the factual features the Court regarded as important: the allegations were of a similar character, involved the same complainant and occurred within a fourteen-month window. The Court found the evidence significantly probative for the tendency that the accused had a sexual interest in the complainant [9]. In plain English, the alleged incidents were treated as relevant in combination because of their shared features and their connection to the same asserted tendency.

Paragraph 9 also says that careful directions would be given to the jury about the way tendency reasoning could be used. That observation explains a feature of the Court’s prejudice assessment, but the reasons do not set out the directions themselves. Paragraph 10 contains the operative result: all charged and uncharged incidents in the application were admissible as tendency evidence. The order does not state that the jury must accept the allegations as true or that they establish guilt.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to the kind of preliminary admissibility application actually before Baker J: a prosecution seeks to adduce a number of charged and uncharged alleged incidents as tendency evidence, gives notice of the proposed tendency, and the evidence concerns the same complainant over a relatively confined period [1], [3], [9].

The features expressly relied on were that the evidence was of a similar character, concerned the same complainant, and arose within a fourteen-month period [9]. The prosecution’s principal specified tendency was that the accused had a sexual interest in the complainant [4], [9]. The judgment also arose in the context of allegations involving a complainant under 16 and an accused aged 18 to 19 [2].

Those features describe the application of the test, not a categorical rule. The reasons do not determine how the same approach would apply to evidence concerning different complainants, a longer period, dissimilar conduct, disputed notice, or an objection based on particular prejudice. Nor do they establish that every allegation in the notice independently demonstrated every tendency. The prosecution itself accepted that the incidents and asserted tendencies did not all map onto every count [5]-[6].

The decision may also be relevant where parties seek a preliminary admissibility ruling without asking the Court at that stage to settle the precise use of each incident. Baker J accepted that incident-by-incident allocation was unnecessary for the application and distinguished that preliminary task from framing the trial judge’s summing-up [7].

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no subsequent judicial treatment of DPP v Loughton. It therefore does not establish whether later courts followed, distinguished, applied, or otherwise considered this decision. No later cases are identified in the material provided.

The only other case cited in the reasons is R v Bauer [2018] HCA 40; 266 CLR 56, cited at paragraph 9 by reference to paragraphs [48], [50] and [60]. That is an earlier authority, not later treatment of Loughton. Baker J refers to it in connection with the similarity, same-complainant and limited-period features of the evidence [9]. The reasons do not reproduce or independently explain the cited passages.

Accordingly, any account of subsequent appellate or trial-court treatment would require sources beyond this judgment. On the text provided, the safe account is that Baker J applied the statutory test to the particular application and cited Bauer in support of the significance of the evidence’s shared features.

Still-open questions

The judgment leaves several matters unresolved because they were outside the preliminary ruling or were not necessary to decide. First, it does not determine which specific incidents demonstrated each asserted tendency. The prosecution acknowledged that not every incident supported every tendency, and the parties agreed that the Court need not resolve the allocation at that stage [5]-[7].

Second, the judgment does not frame the detailed jury directions. It records that careful directions would be given about the tendency reasoning that might be used, but does not specify their content [9]. The order therefore should not be read as a ruling on the exact language or structure of directions at trial.

Third, the reasons decide admissibility, not proof. They do not determine whether any charged or uncharged allegation occurred, what weight the evidence should receive, or the accused’s guilt on any count [7], [10]. The order confirms that the identified incidents were admissible as tendency evidence; it does not resolve the ultimate factual issues.

Finally, the judgment is brief and tied to the record before the Court. It does not provide a general analysis of how the statutory test applies to materially different evidence, nor does it discuss possible objections not raised in this application. The reasons record that the accused did not object to admission or to use of the evidence for tendency purposes [9]. Any broader proposition should therefore be checked against the statutory text and other relevant authorities, rather than inferred from this ruling alone.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.