Harris (a pseudonym) v the Queen

The appellant, Harris, was charged with sexual penetration of a child under the age of ten years and sexual penetration of a child between the ages of ten and sixteen years. The trial judge admitted evidence of Harris’s sexual activity with a child under the age of ten years, which was not the subject of the charges, as coincidence evidence under section 98(1) of the Evidence Act 2008. The appellant appealed the decision to admit this evidence on the basis that it had little probative value and that its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value. The High Court was required to decide whether the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence of Harris’s sexual activity with the child under the age of ten years and whether this evidence had significant probative value. The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence as coincidence evidence and that the evidence had significant probative value. The court held that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have on the accused. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the charges against Harris and that it was necessary to understand the context of the alleged offences. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, and the conviction be quashed and the matter be remitted to the trial judge for a new trial.