R v Rendell

The appellant, Mr Rendell, appealed his conviction for three counts of aggravated indecent assault. The dispute centred on allegations made by the complainant, ES, concerning events that occurred during a visit to the appellant's home in December 2015. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, Stanley and Bampton JJ.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of uncharged acts, specifically an alleged indecent act near a fruit shop, and whether the judge failed to adequately consider each count of the indictment separately. The court was also required to determine if the verdicts were supported by the evidence, particularly in light of the appellant's character evidence and denials.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was correct to admit the evidence of the uncharged acts. The Chief Justice reasoned that the uncharged acts were admissible as they demonstrated a pattern of behaviour and provided context for the charged offences, thereby possessing significant probative value. The judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence as a whole was deemed appropriate, as the uncharged acts were temporally and causally connected to the alleged assaults, and their combined force was crucial to understanding the complainant's submission and the appellant's conduct. The court rejected the argument that each count required a separate, formulaic consideration of evidence, finding it unnecessary and artificial in this context.

The appeal was dismissed, with all judges agreeing with the reasons provided by the Chief Justice.