KRM v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by KRM against convictions for multiple sexual offences against a child, including one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with the complainant under s 47A of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic). The appeal concerned whether a propensity warning was required in circumstances where the presentment contained multiple counts of sexual offences alongside the s 47A charge, and whether such a warning was necessary in relation to the individual acts forming the basis of the s 47A charge.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge erred by failing to give a propensity warning to the jury, and whether evidence of uncharged sexual acts was admissible to prove the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the complainant. The Court also considered the operation of the proviso and the admissibility of propensity evidence under the "no rational view" test.

The High Court affirmed that there is no absolute rule requiring a propensity warning simply because a presentment includes a count under s 47A or similar provisions, nor in respect of the individual acts forming the basis of such a charge. Ordinarily, a direction that the jury must consider each count and its evidence separately is sufficient. Propensity evidence is generally inadmissible at common law unless it has no rational explanation other than supporting an inference of guilt. The Court found that the trial judge's directions, which emphasised separate consideration of each count, were adequate in this case, and that the evidence of uncharged acts was admissible as it met the test for propensity evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.