R v Sadler

The defendant, Sadler, was convicted of rape and common law assault. The trial court considered whether the judge had erred in preventing the defence from cross-examining the complainant about her heroin consumption and prostitution activities at the time of the alleged offences. The court also examined whether the judge had erred in not directing the jury that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the uncharged acts had been proved before using them in their reasoning.

The court was required to determine whether the intended cross-examination of the complainant as to heroin consumption related to her credit or her capacity to perceive and recall the alleged offences. The court also needed to decide whether the intended cross-examination as to prostitution was relevant to the facts in issue. Additionally, the court considered whether the judge had failed to direct the jury that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the uncharged acts had been proved before using them in their reasoning.

The court found that the judge had not erred in preventing the defence from cross-examining the complainant as to heroin consumption and prostitution. The court held that the intended cross-examination as to heroin consumption was more likely related to the complainant's credit rather than her capacity to perceive and recall the alleged offences. Furthermore, the court found that the intended cross-examination as to prostitution did not have substantial relevance to the facts in issue. The court also held that the judge had not erred in failing to direct the jury on the requirement of being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the uncharged acts before using them in their reasoning.

The court quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial.