Director of Public Prosecutions v Wesley Matthews (a pseudonym)[1]

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Wesley Matthews, an interlocutory appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal. The respondent, Matthews, was facing charges related to sexual offences involving two complainants. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility of tendency evidence, specifically the tendency of Matthews to act on a sexual interest with children. The trial judge ruled that the evidence was not cross-admissible, and subsequently refused to certify the case for appeal. Matthews sought leave to appeal, arguing that the judge's decision was incorrect.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the probative value of the tendency evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect, and if the availability of defences should be considered when determining these factors. The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 97(1) and 101(2) of the Evidence Act 2008, as well as relevant case law such as R v Bauer and Hughes v The Queen. The Court also considered section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

The Court found that the trial judge had erred in considering the availability of defences when determining whether the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. The Court held that the availability of defences was not a relevant factor in this determination. The Court held that the evidence was indeed cross-admissible and granted leave to appeal. The appeal was subsequently allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court's decision provides clarity on the admissibility of tendency evidence in sexual offence cases and the factors that must be considered when determining its admissibility.