R v CX

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the decisions of the Primary Judge to admit certain evidence in the criminal trial of the accused, CX, who was charged with engaging in sexual intercourse with a young person, an act of indecency with a young person, and indecent assault. The Crown argued that the Primary Judge erred in admitting certain evidence and sought to exclude that evidence from the trial. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the application to admit tendency evidence was correctly allowed by the Primary Judge, and whether the application to admit relationship and context evidence was also correctly allowed. The Crown contended that the tendency evidence should not have been admitted as it was not relevant to any fact of consequence in the proceeding, and it was oppressive to the accused. Similarly, the Crown argued that the relationship and context evidence should not have been admitted as it was not relevant to any fact of consequence in the proceeding.

The court held that the application to admit tendency evidence was allowed in part. The court found that the tendency evidence was relevant to a fact of consequence in the proceeding, namely, whether the allegations were concocted or subject to contamination. However, the court found that the Primary Judge had not correctly applied the criteria set out in IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14. The court also held that the application to admit relationship and context evidence was allowed in part. The court found that the evidence was relevant to explain the late complaint by the complainant, but it was not relevant to any other fact of consequence in the proceeding.

The court made orders that the tendency evidence be admitted to the extent that it was relevant to whether the allegations were concocted or subject to contamination. The court also made orders that the relationship and context evidence be admitted to the extent that it was relevant to explain the late complaint by the complainant. The court held that the remainder of the evidence was to be excluded.