D v the Queen B72/1999

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by D against a conviction for sexual assault. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during D's trial, specifically evidence relating to alleged prior sexual misconduct by D. The High Court was tasked with determining whether this evidence was improperly admitted, thereby rendering the trial unfair.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence of prior sexual misconduct was admissible under the rules of evidence, particularly concerning its tendency to prove the commission of the offence charged. This involved an examination of whether the evidence possessed sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect, and whether it was relevant to an issue in dispute beyond merely suggesting a propensity to commit the offence.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the evidence of prior sexual misconduct was improperly admitted. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence did not possess the necessary degree of relevance to the offence charged, nor did it have sufficient probative value to justify its admission. The prejudicial effect of the evidence, which suggested a propensity on the part of the appellant to commit such offences, was found to outweigh any legitimate relevance it might have had. Consequently, the admission of this evidence was deemed to have occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice. The High Court ordered that the conviction be quashed and a new trial be held.