Kerridge v The King

The applicant, Kerridge, sought leave to appeal against his conviction. The appeal concerned the trial judge's summing up to the jury regarding the use of certain evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's summing up was contrary to law in relation to the use of evidence about the complainant's motive to lie, and whether the summing up was inadequate concerning the use of relationship evidence.

The court found that the summing up regarding the complainant's motive to lie was not contrary to law. In relation to the relationship evidence, the court noted that such evidence is admissible for various purposes, including assessing the plausibility and coherence of a complainant's evidence, providing essential background, and explaining acquiescence to sexual abuse. The trial judge had directed the jury that the relationship evidence was admitted for a limited purpose, to assist in determining whether the complainant consented and whether the accused knew she was not consenting or was reckless. The judge cautioned the jury not to use the evidence to infer propensity or bad character, as it was only circumstantial evidence that, taken with other circumstances, could be considered in deciding guilt. The court concluded that the summing up on this issue was not inadequate.

Leave to appeal was refused.