R v PWD

The defendant, PWD, appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court of the State to exclude evidence of his past sexual activities with young male students. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence that was relevant to the defendant's propensity to have a sexual interest in young male students and to engage in sexual activities with them. This evidence was deemed inadmissible as its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 1995, particularly sections 97 and 98, which govern the admissibility of tendency evidence. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in excluding the evidence. The court found that the evidence did not have significant probative value as it was not shown to be part of a pattern of behaviour, modus operandi or system with common threads. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence did not establish a "sufficient similarity" or "striking similarity" with the current charges, and equated tendency evidence with coincidence evidence was inappropriate. The court also found that the evidence of each allegation was "different" and therefore separate counts on the indictment should be heard together.

The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the trial judge's decision to exclude the evidence of the defendant's past sexual activities with young male students. The court found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for admissibility under the Evidence Act 1995. The court also found that the evidence did not establish a pattern of behaviour, modus operandi or system with common threads, and that equating tendency evidence with coincidence evidence was inappropriate. The court held that the evidence of each allegation was "different" and therefore separate counts on the indictment should be heard together.