R v RD

The case of R v RD was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The defendant, RD, was on trial for various sexual offences. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of previous complaints made by other women, alleging that the defendant had sexually assaulted them. The nature of the dispute centred on the admissibility of this evidence under the tendency evidence provisions in the Evidence Act. The court was required to decide whether the evidence of these other complainants had sufficient probative value to outweigh the prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant.

The court considered whether the evidence of the other complainants demonstrated a tendency by the defendant to be sexually interested in young girls. This involved assessing the similarity of the acts, the distance in time between the incidents, and the risk of concoction and contamination. The prosecution argued that the evidence was highly probative of the facts in issue, while the defence contended that the risk of prejudice substantially outweighed any probative value. The court carefully weighed these competing considerations, ultimately determining that the evidence of two of the complainants had sufficient probative value and was therefore admissible. However, the evidence of the third complainant was deemed to have minimal probative value and was rejected.

The court concluded that the evidence of the first two complainants was relevant and could assist in establishing the defendant's propensity towards the charged offences. The similarity in the nature of the acts and the fact that they occurred over a period of time supported the conclusion that the evidence was probative. The court found that while there was a risk of prejudice, this was not so significant as to exclude the evidence. In contrast, the evidence of the third complainant was rejected due to a lack of significant probative value. The court ordered that the tendency evidence relating to two of the complainants be admitted, while the evidence regarding the third complainant was excluded from the trial.