R v Dickens

In the case of R v Dickens, the defendant faced charges relating to possession of child abuse material (CAM) and accessing CAM via the internet. The matter was heard in a court where the admissibility of certain evidence was contested. The court had to determine whether the evidence tendered by the prosecution, concerning the defendant’s internet activities and the presence of certain images on his devices, could be admitted under the provisions of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011. The central legal issues revolved around the application of the tendency and coincidence evidence rules, as well as the potential unfair prejudice to the defendant if certain evidence was admitted.

The court assessed whether the evidence of the defendant’s internet access and the images found on his devices could be considered as tendency or coincidence evidence. It was determined that the evidence regarding the defendant’s internet access and the storage of CAM on his devices met the criteria for coincidence evidence, as there were significant similarities in the access patterns that pointed to the defendant being the sole user. However, the court found that the evidence of the images of young children found on the defendant’s devices did not meet the threshold for tendency evidence as it was not proven that the defendant possessed the images, nor was it proven that the images were CAM. The court also found that the probative value of the evidence of the defendant’s pornography habits, although potentially prejudicial, was not outweighed by the unfair prejudice it may cause, and was therefore admissible.

The court ruled that the evidence concerning the defendant’s internet activities and the content found on his devices was admissible under the coincidence rule, as it showed a pattern of access that strongly suggested the defendant’s involvement. However, the court excluded certain images found on the defendant’s devices from being admitted as tendency evidence, as the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant possessed the images or that they constituted CAM. The court concluded that the probative value of the pornographic material evidence, while prejudicial, did not exceed the potential prejudice to the defendant, and thus it was admitted.