R v Banks (No 2)

The case of R v Banks (No 2) involved the respondent, Banks, appealing against the trial judge's decision to exclude certain evidence in relation to a criminal trial. The trial concerned allegations of sexual offences against Banks, with the complainants being children. The trial judge had ruled that the evidence of one complainant, MS, who testified that another complainant, AB, had made a complaint to her, was inadmissible. This ruling was made on the basis that it would be unfair to the jury to consider this evidence given the sensitivity of the subject matter and the potential for prejudice. The Crown sought to appeal this decision, arguing that the evidence was relevant and should be considered in the context of the other evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court centred on the admissibility of complaint evidence from child complainants in a criminal trial, particularly when the evidence is to be used to show that other children had made complaints. The Crown argued that the evidence should be admitted under the rules governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence, which allow for such evidence when it is relevant to an issue in the case. The court had to balance the potential for prejudice against the probative value of the evidence in determining its admissibility.

The court held that the trial judge's decision to exclude the evidence was correct. It was found that the potential for prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The court reasoned that allowing the evidence could have led to a miscarriage of justice, as it might have influenced the jury's decision based on the emotional impact of the evidence rather than its relevance to the charges against Banks. Additionally, the court noted that the evidence did not directly relate to the charges against Banks but was instead an attempt to bolster the credibility of another witness's testimony. The court also determined that the Crown was not permitted to rely on tendency reasoning in relation to certain counts of the indictment, as the evidence in question did not meet the criteria for admissibility under the relevant legal principles.

The court's final orders were that the evidence of MS regarding AB's complaint was to be excluded from the trial. Furthermore, the Crown was prohibited from using tendency reasoning in relation to counts 5 to 7 of the indictment. These rulings were made to ensure that the trial remained fair and focused on the evidence directly relevant to the charges against Banks.