R v GM

The respondent was indicted on six counts of sexual assault involving three complainants. The primary judge ordered separate trials for each complainant, finding a real chance or possibility of concoction or contamination in relation to the evidence of the complainants and tendency witnesses. The Crown appealed, arguing that the primary judge erred in ordering separate trials and in finding a real chance or possibility of concoction or contamination. The appeal was allowed, and the Crown was at liberty to adduce tendency evidence.

The appeal raised several issues concerning the admissibility of tendency evidence under the Evidence Act. The court considered whether the primary judge erred in ordering separate trials for each complainant, whether the primary judge erred in finding a real chance or possibility of concoction or contamination, and whether the balancing exercise under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act was properly conducted. The court held that the primary judge erred in ordering separate trials and in finding a real chance or possibility of concoction or contamination. The court also held that the balancing exercise under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act was not properly conducted.

The court held that the primary judge erred in ordering separate trials because the probative value of the evidence of the complainants and tendency witnesses was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court held that the primary judge erred in finding a real chance or possibility of concoction or contamination because there was no evidence to support such a finding. The court also held that the balancing exercise under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act was not properly conducted because the primary judge failed to consider all relevant factors.

The appeal was allowed, and the six counts on the indictment were to be heard together. The Crown was at liberty to adduce tendency evidence. The court held that the probative value of the evidence of the complainants and tendency witnesses was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and that there was no real chance or possibility of concoction or contamination. The court also held that the balancing exercise under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act was not properly conducted, and that the primary judge failed to consider all relevant factors.