R v Eastman (No 21)

In this case, the respondent, a former police officer, faced charges for multiple counts of sexual assault, abuse of office, and misconduct in public office. The evidence presented included allegations from multiple complainants and the prosecution sought to rely on evidence of a tendency to commit sexual offences. The court, presided over by Justice Burns, was tasked with determining the admissibility of this tendency evidence under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The respondent argued that the prosecution's tendency evidence was flawed as it was not based on a single course of conduct and did not meet the requirements under sections 97 and 98 of the Act. The court had to consider whether the prosecution's tendency evidence was sufficiently particularised and whether it was relevant to a matter that was of consequence to the determination of the proceedings.

The court carefully examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the prosecution's tendency evidence met the legal criteria. It was held that the tendency evidence was not appropriately identified and particularised, thus failing to meet the requirements of section 97 of the Act. The court found that the prosecution's evidence did not sufficiently outline the conduct or events which formed the basis of the tendency evidence. As a result, the court ruled that the prosecution's tendency evidence was inadmissible, as it did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility. The court found that the prosecution's failure to properly identify and particularise the tendency evidence meant that it could not be used as a basis for the jury's consideration.

The court's decision effectively precluded the prosecution from relying on the tendency evidence in its case against the respondent. The court's findings on the admissibility of the tendency evidence were pivotal in shaping the direction of the trial. The final orders of the court reflected the ruling on the admissibility of the tendency evidence, with the court ruling that the prosecution's tendency evidence was inadmissible under the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT).