R v Paterson (No 3)

In the case of R v Paterson (No 3), the respondent appealed a conviction for indecent assault against a child under the age of ten years. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent argued that evidence of the sexual reputation and experience of the complainant should not have been admitted by the trial judge.

The legal issue before the court was whether evidence of a complainant's sexual reputation and experience is admissible in criminal trials for sexual offences. The court considered whether such evidence is relevant to the facts in issue and whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have. The court also examined whether the evidence should be excluded under any of the common law rules concerning the admissibility of character evidence.

The court held that evidence of a complainant's sexual reputation and experience is not admissible in criminal trials for sexual offences. The court found that such evidence is not relevant to any fact in issue in the case and its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs any probative value it may have. The court emphasised that the law in this area is well-established and that the trial judge should not have admitted the impugned evidence. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.