MDP v The King

Criminal practice – Appeal – Wrong decision on question of law – Where appellant convicted of sexual offences – Where Crown led evidence of appellant smacking complainant's backside as evidence of sexual interest – Where direction to jury permitted use of that evidence as propensity evidence – Where appellant's trial counsel did not object to admission of evidence or to direction – Whether admission of evidence wrong decision on question of law – Whether direction wrong decision on question of law – Whether wrong decision on question of law has materiality threshold – Whether direction material – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice.

Words and phrases – "appeal", "common form criminal appeal provision", "conduct of counsel", "context evidence", "could realistically have affected the reasoning of the jury to a verdict of guilty", "decision", "decision over objection", "direction to the jury", "error or irregularity", "evidence of sexual interest", "failure to object", "fundamental", "inadmissible evidence", "materiality", "misdirection", "Pfennig direction", "Pfennig test", "propensity direction", "propensity evidence", "propensity reasoning", "proviso", "question of law", "relationship evidence", "rule in Pfennig", "second limb", "sexual interest", "sexual offence", "substantial miscarriage of justice", "trial counsel", "wrong decision", "wrong decision on a question of law".

Criminal Code (Qld) – s 668E.