MM v the Queen S137/2002

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of MM against a conviction for sexual offences. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during MM's trial, specifically evidence relating to the complainant's prior sexual history. The central question before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting this evidence, thereby prejudicing MM's right to a fair trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the admission of evidence concerning the complainant's sexual history, pursuant to section 137 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW), was an error that rendered the trial unfair. This required the Court to consider the application of section 137, which mandates the exclusion of evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The Court also had to determine if the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence.

Gummow and Callinan JJ found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence. Their Honours reasoned that the probative value of the evidence was low, and its potential to create unfair prejudice against the appellant was high. The evidence was not relevant to any issue in dispute and served only to potentially influence the jury's perception of the appellant's character or the complainant's credibility in a way that was not legally permissible. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.