R v Bishop

In the case of R v Bishop, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of past child sex offences to support a charge of conspiracy to commit child sex offences overseas. The decision was made by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the defendant's past offences was admissible under section 31A of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA). The court had to determine if the evidence had significant probative value and if the probative value outweighed the risk of an unfair trial.

The court examined the criteria set out in section 31A(2) of the Act. Firstly, the court considered whether the evidence had significant probative value, meaning it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the relevant fact in issue to a significant extent. The court noted that while the evidence was relevant, it did not reach the threshold of having significant probative value. Secondly, the court assessed the degree of risk of unfairness that would result from the admission of the evidence. The court concluded that the risk of an unfair trial was substantial, given the potential for the jury to be influenced by the evidence of past offences. After weighing the probative value against the risk of unfairness, the court found that fair-minded members of the community would consider the risk of an unfair trial to be too great.

The court ultimately ruled that the evidence of past child sex offences was not admissible, as it did not satisfy the criteria set out in section 31A(2) of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA). Consequently, the application to adduce the evidence was refused.