R v C, CA

The appeal concerned the convictions of an appellant for sexual offences against three complainants: MG, SG, and MA. The appellant argued that the trial judge made errors regarding the admissibility and directions concerning evidence, particularly propensity evidence and evidence relating to different complainants. The Court of Appeal considered whether the evidence of offending against one complainant was admissible in the trial of charges relating to other complainants, and whether the jury directions on character evidence were adequate.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the offending against SG in the trial of charges relating to MG and MA, and whether the directions given to the jury regarding the cross-admissibility of evidence between the counts involving the different complainants were erroneous. Additionally, the court examined the adequacy of the directions given to the jury concerning the appellant's evidence of good character.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and remitted the matter for retrial. The court found that the directions on the cross-admissibility of evidence between the counts relating to the several complainants were erroneous. Furthermore, the evidence of the offending against SG was wrongly admitted in the trial of the charges alleging offending against MG and MA. The court also noted that the directions on character evidence, while not the primary basis for allowing the appeal, could have been more comprehensive in line with established principles regarding the use of such evidence to bolster an accused's credibility.