Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson (a pseudonym)

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to introduce tendency evidence in a case where the accused was charged with multiple child sexual offences. The two complainants in the case were sisters. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court was required to determine whether the accused's past sexual offences against the complainants were admissible as tendency evidence under section 97A of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The court considered the presumption that the evidence has significant probative value and whether there were exceptional circumstances that would result in the exclusion of the evidence due to the potential for unfair prejudice.

The court examined the nature of the offences, the relationship between the accused and the complainants, and the potential impact of the evidence on the jury. The court considered whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice, including the risk of the jury having an emotional or irrational response to the evidence. The court also took into account the need to ensure a fair trial for the accused and the importance of protecting the integrity of the legal process. After careful consideration of these factors, the court concluded that the probative value of the tendency evidence did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice.

The court held that the tendency evidence was inadmissible, and therefore, the application to adduce the evidence was dismissed. The court found that the risk of unfair prejudice, including the potential for an emotional or irrational response from the jury, was too high to allow the evidence to be considered. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring a fair trial for the accused and protecting the integrity of the legal process. The court's decision was based on a careful weighing of the probative value of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice. The court found that the probative value of the evidence was not sufficient to overcome the risk of unfair prejudice.