Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 2)

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson (a pseudonym) (No 2), the accused faced charges arising from alleged sexual offences committed against two children. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the severance of charges for separate trials. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility of tendency evidence under the common law and statutory provisions, the relevance and probative value of the evidence in question, and the exceptional circumstances warranting the recall of a key witness. The court also had to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the severance of the charges for separate trials.

The court found that the accused was not an adult for the duration of the date range specified in the indictment for counts 1 to 3, thereby invalidating the initial tendency ruling. The court also held that the proposed tendency evidence regarding these counts lacked probative value and was more prejudicial than probative. The relevance and probative value of the evidence concerning the two child complainants were examined, with the court determining that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the recall of the complainant FO for further cross-examination. Consequently, the court concluded that the charges should be severed, with counts 1 to 3 to be tried separately from counts 4 to 9.

The final orders of the court were that the prosecution could not use the tendency evidence from counts 1 to 3 in support of counts 4 to 9. The indictment was directed to be severed, with counts 1 to 3 to be tried separately. The witness FO was to be recalled for further cross-examination, with the evidence limited to specific text messages, an image from a wedding, and another image. This decision ensures the fairness of the trial while addressing the concerns of the parties involved.