Criminal practice – Trial – Tendency evidence – Directions to jury – Where respondent charged with child sexual offences against single complainant – Where charges arose out of three separate alleged incidents – Where Crown contended evidence in support of charged acts established a tendency on part of respondent – Where trial judge directed jury in determining whether tendency established to make findings in respect of charged acts to a lesser standard than criminal standard – Whether tendency direction likely to have deflected jury's attention from applying required standard of proof – Whether reliance on evidence of charged acts as basis for tendency inconsistent with nature of tendency evidence – Whether tendency direction required jury to engage in impermissible circular reasoning.
Words and phrases – "beyond reasonable doubt", "charged acts", "child sexual offence", "circular reasoning", "circumstantial evidence", "deflected from applying the required standard of proof", "inconsistent with the nature of tendency evidence", "inferential reasoning", "intermediate conclusion", "intermediate fact", "jury direction", "lesser standard", "miscarriage of justice", "misdirection", "probability", "proof of the charges", "sexual offences", "significant probative value", "single-act tendency", "standard of proof", "summing up", "tendency", "tendency direction", "tendency evidence", "tendency notice", "tendency reasoning".
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C(1), 66DB(a).
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1).
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 161A.
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 97A, 101(2).