Lancaster v R

The appeal before the court involved the appellant, Lancaster, who was convicted of multiple charges including indecent acts with a child under 16 years, sexual penetrations of a child under 16 years, and making a threat to kill. The appellant contested the admissibility of certain evidence, including expert opinion evidence based on representations in business records, and challenged the judge's refusal to allow cross-examination of the complainant. The appeal raised several legal issues concerning the admissibility of expert evidence, the requirement of anti-propensity warnings, and the potential for ostensible bias on the part of the trial judge.

The court examined whether the exclusion of the business records was likely to result in a substantial miscarriage of justice and whether the expert opinion evidence was admissible. The court held that the judge should have reviewed each entry in the files to determine if it satisfied the requirements of admissibility under section 69 of the Evidence Act 2008. The court also considered whether the complainant's sexualised behaviour was a result of exposure to sexual conduct or abuse, and if there was a risk of misattribution or transference. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the judge's refusal to recuse himself and allow cross-examination of the complainant led to apparent bias.

The court concluded that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination of the complainant and in excluding the expert opinion evidence. The court held that the exclusion of this evidence was likely to result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the judge's refusal to recuse himself did not give rise to apparent bias. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

The final orders of the court were to quash the convictions and order a retrial of the appellant. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the admission of evidence does not lead to a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the rights of the accused are protected. The court also highlighted the need for careful consideration of expert evidence based on business records and the application of anti-propensity warnings in sexual offence cases.