R v Brownlow No. Sccrm-03-135

The matter before the court was an appeal against conviction by the appellant, Brownlow, against a decision of the District Court of South Australia. The appellant was found guilty of indecent assault of a minor and two counts of committing an indecent act in the presence of a minor. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in law in allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence of the appellant’s previous criminal convictions and his use of drugs. The appellant argued that the evidence was inadmissible as it was irrelevant to the issues in the case and was prejudicial to the appellant.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in law by allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence of the appellant’s previous criminal convictions and his use of drugs. The court held that such evidence was inadmissible as it was irrelevant to the issues in the case and was prejudicial to the appellant. The court held that the evidence was not admissible to prove the appellant’s character or propensity to commit the offences with which he was charged. The court held that the evidence was only admissible if it had probative value in relation to a fact in issue in the case other than the appellant’s character or propensity to commit the offences. The court held that the evidence did not have such probative value and was therefore inadmissible.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the District Court for a retrial. The court held that the error in law by the trial judge was not a minor error that could be disregarded as it had the potential to affect the outcome of the case. The court held that the error in law had the potential to affect the jury’s assessment of the appellant’s credibility and therefore the outcome of the case. The court held that a retrial was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.