DPP v Roder

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against an interlocutory decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal concerning jury directions in a criminal trial. The respondent, Benjamin Roder, faced 27 charges of sexual offences against two children. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence of both uncharged and charged acts to establish a tendency on the part of the respondent. The central dispute revolved around the standard of proof the jury should apply when considering the charged acts as evidence of this alleged tendency.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge's proposed direction, which required the jury to find charged acts proved beyond reasonable doubt before using them for tendency purposes, was precluded by section 61 of the *Jury Directions Act 2015* (Vic), and whether, in any event, such a direction was erroneous. The Court of Appeal had held that the trial judge's proposed direction was not precluded by the Act and that to direct otherwise would invite circular reasoning and a less rigorous standard of proof for the charges.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's proposed direction was indeed precluded by section 61 of the *Jury Directions Act 2015* (Vic), consistent with previous High Court authority in *Bauer*. The Court reasoned that the Act mandates that evidence of charged acts relied upon for tendency purposes must be proved to the same standard as the elements of the offence, which is beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a different approach was permissible for charged acts when used for tendency purposes, as this would undermine the statutory requirement and the principle that all elements of a charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and remitted the matter to the County Court of Victoria.