R v Kisun

The case of R v Kisun involved the respondent being charged with sexual offences against a complainant. The prosecution sought to adduce tendency evidence from a witness, A, and the complainant relating to separate incidents which were similar in nature to the charged offences. The trial judge excluded the evidence, finding it was not sufficiently similar to the charged offences, and that there was a significant risk of contamination or concoction. The prosecution appealed the decision to exclude the evidence.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the prosecution was entitled to lead tendency evidence from A and the complainant regarding separate incidents. The court had to consider whether the incidents were similar enough to the charged offences to be admissible, and whether there was a significant risk of contamination or concoction that would render the evidence inadmissible. The court also considered the cross-admissibility of the evidence.

The court found that the incidents were similar enough to the charged offences to be admissible, and that there was no significant risk of contamination or concoction. The court held that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence. The court found that the tendency evidence from A regarding incidents 1 and 2 was admissible, and that the tendency evidence from the complainant regarding incidents 3 to 5 was cross-admissible. The court held that the prosecution was entitled to lead this evidence.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial judge for further proceedings. The court held that the prosecution was permitted to adduce the relevant tendency evidence. The court did not make any orders regarding the final outcome of the case, leaving that to the trial judge.