BI v The Queen (No 2)

BI (the appellant) appealed against guilty verdicts returned by a jury in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appeal concerned the reasonableness of those verdicts, given the evidence presented at trial, and specifically raised issues of evidentiary inconsistency and insufficiency. The appeal was heard by Elkaim and Bromwich JJ, and Robinson AJ.

The primary legal issues before the appellate court were whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable, and whether the admission of certain tendency evidence at trial was lawful. This involved determining if the probative value of the tendency evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect, and whether the conduct relied upon for that evidence was sufficiently similar. A preliminary issue was whether a tendency objection had been properly raised during the trial, which would affect whether the appellant required leave to argue this point on appeal.

The court determined that leave to rely on one of the grounds of appeal (Ground 2) should be refused, except for the aspect relating to section 101 of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT), which did not require leave. The appeal was ultimately dismissed. Consequently, the stay of the appellant's sentence, which had been ordered previously, was discharged, and the appellant's bail was revoked.