Little (a Pseudonym) v The Queen

The appeal concerned the conviction of the appellant, referred to as Little, for the offence of sexual assault. The appeal was heard by Kiefel and Gordon JJ of the High Court of Australia. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence during the appellant's trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior sexual misconduct, which was alleged to be similar to the offence for which he was charged. Specifically, the court had to consider whether this evidence was relevant to establishing a course of conduct or a system, and if its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Their Honours found that the evidence of prior sexual misconduct was not admissible to prove the appellant's propensity to commit the offence charged. They reasoned that the similarities between the prior conduct and the alleged offence were not sufficiently striking to establish a system or course of conduct that would justify its admission. The court applied the principles governing the admissibility of evidence of prior misconduct, emphasizing that such evidence should not be admitted merely to show that the accused is a person of bad character or likely to have committed the offence. The prejudicial effect of the evidence was considered to outweigh its probative value.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.