192 The judge gave these extensive directions as to the proper use of tendency and/or coincidence evidence at SU46-49 of 20/11/98:
"I now turn to consider with you the extent to which you may have regard to evidence of other complainants and of the witnesses [A10] and [SB] in determining whether in respect of any other complainant and in respect of any of the charges, the Crown has established its case.
Again, you may not use this evidence as indicating that does the accused (sic) had a tendency or propensity to act in a particular way and I will come to the limited way in which you may have regard to this evidence in a moment.
As I have explained to you, you are obliged to approach the task of coming to a verdict in respect of each of the charges separately and on the basis of the evidence which is relevant and admitted in respect of that particular charge.
As I have said before, it would be wrong to conclude that because you have found that the Crown has established its case in relation to only one charge, therefore it has necessarily established its case in respect of any other and I have also told you that it would not be proper for you or correct to conclude that because the Crown had established its case of only one charge, in relation to one complainant, it had therefore established its case in respect of any other charge in respect of another complainant.
I have also tried to emphasise the vital evidence for the Crown in respect of each of these charges is the evidence of the complainants.
In some circumstances nevertheless, the law does permit the evidence of other acts similar to those the subject of a particular charge to be taken into consideration in determining whether the Crown has proved that particular charge.
For the purposes of this case this may arise where there is other evidence which is so strikingly and relevantly similar to the evidence given by the complainant in respect of a particular charge, as to indicate to you a pattern of conduct of the accused of which you form the view that the particular charge in question forms a part.
There will be such a pattern of conduct where the evidence of the complainant in relation to the particular charge under consideration, bears such a striking and relevant similarity to the conduct of the accused, disclosed by the evidence of other complainants in the case, and/or the evidence of other witnesses such as [A10] and/or[SB] that such a pattern develops and emerges in your view, beyond reasonable doubt.
The Crown relies on a number of such circumstances of striking and relevant similarity in this case. Among the matters of similarity on which it relies is for instance that the accused would approach boys who were either sub teenagers or in the very early teens. He would entertain them or excite their interest by introducing them to activities which they would not in their own personal circumstances be likely to be able to enjoy otherwise.
He would employ as part of his technique of seduction, so says the Crown, video films with explicit hetero-sexual features likely to interest and sexually arouse boys of that age. He would permit or even in some cases, supply alcohol to be taken by people, who are according to our usual standards, too young to be allowed to consume alcohol. In some cases he would give them money or permit them to obtain goods on his charge account or give them presents or take them to places at his expense.
There would be, so argues the Crown, a progression of seriousness in the sexual conduct which the accused would indulge in with these boys, starting with touching or patting then on to masturbation, mutual or joint, then oral sex and in some cases to anal intercourse.
In addition there was such things as making available Penthouse magazines and the use of KY gel for the purposes of masturbation or in some cases anal intercourse.
If you come to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, that the evidence does disclose such strikingly and relevantly similar features, as to reveal a pattern and to which any one of the particular acts charged falls and which you have under your consideration, then it would be open to you to have regard to that pattern as circumstances in determining whether that particular act relied on by the Crown occurred as the act of the accused.
In order to do so however, you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was such a pattern of conduct based on relevantly and strikingly similar circumstances and that there is no other explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused to account for such a pattern of conduct on his part towards these complainants and also to [A10] and[ SB]."