R v RB; Attorney-General (NSW) as Intervenor (No 2)

The case of R v RB involved a defendant charged with sexual offences. The defendant applied for the court to exclude certain evidence on the basis that it was irrelevant or potentially misleading or prejudicial. The Attorney-General of New South Wales intervened in the matter. The court was required to determine the admissibility of evidence related to the defendant's lack of sexual experience and evidence related to false complaints against the defendant. The issues before the court included whether such evidence was relevant, whether it might mislead or prejudice the jury, and whether its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The court considered the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995, specifically sections 135 and 137. Section 135 addresses the admissibility of evidence that might be misleading or prejudicial, while section 137 pertains to unfair prejudice. The court found that the evidence regarding the defendant's lack of sexual experience was not relevant to the issue of consent and was likely to mislead the jury. Similarly, evidence about false complaints was deemed potentially prejudicial without significant probative value. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value, leading to the exclusion of the evidence. The court declined to make the orders sought by the defendant in the Notice of Motion dated 6 August 2019.