R v Rajakaruna (No 2)

In the case of R v Rajakaruna (No 2), the respondent, Rajakaruna, was charged with two counts of sexual assault. The complainants, two women, alleged that the respondent had sexually assaulted them during separate incidents. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of similar fact evidence, and the trial judge's directions to the jury. The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on inferential reasoning, the admissibility of similar fact evidence, and whether the judge should have withdrawn a particular issue from the jury's consideration.

The High Court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury on inferential reasoning as the Crown's case was partly circumstantial. The court also found that the judge should not have withdrawn an issue from the jury's consideration, as it was a matter for the jury to decide. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge should have given directions to the jury regarding the similar fact evidence, as it was relevant to the respondent's propensity to commit sexual offences. The court also found that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury to consider the possibility of an innocent infection as a cause of the complainants' injuries.

The High Court allowed the appeal and directed a new trial, as the errors made by the trial judge could have led to a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasised the importance of giving proper directions to the jury in criminal trials, particularly in cases where the evidence is partly circumstantial. The court also highlighted the need for trial judges to carefully consider the admissibility of similar fact evidence and to ensure that the jury is properly directed on all relevant issues. Overall, this case serves as a reminder to trial judges of the importance of providing clear and accurate directions to the jury in criminal trials.