McRoberts v The King

This case concerned an appeal against convictions for sexual offences. The appellant, McRoberts, was charged with multiple offences against different complainants. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of evidence relating to each alleged offence in the joint trial of all charges. The appeal was heard by Kourakis CJ, Bleby and David JJ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of each complainant was admissible in relation to the charges concerning the other complainants, and consequently, whether the trial judge erred in exercising the discretion not to order separate trials. This involved an interpretation of section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) concerning the joinder and separation of charges, and section 34P of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) regarding the admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence.

The court reasoned that under section 102(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, separate trials for sexual offences involving different alleged victims could only be ordered if the evidence relating to one count was not admissible in relation to the other counts. The evidence of each complainant constituted discreditable conduct evidence in respect of the charges relating to the other complainants, thus engaging section 34P of the Evidence Act. The court found that the evidence was admissible for a permissible use, specifically for similarity of account reasoning to prove the occurrence of the sexual acts, provided its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect and it could be kept separate from impermissible propensity reasoning. The trial judge had found the evidence admissible on this basis.

The court concluded that the evidence was admissible under section 34P(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, and the trial judge's directions were adequate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.