R v Wickson

In the case of R v Wickson, the appellant was convicted of several sexual offences and appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred by admitting similar fact evidence of three complainants without giving a specific warning to the jury about the risk of concoction. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the trial judge was required to give a specific warning to the jury about the risk of concoction when admitting similar fact evidence. The appellant argued that the judge should have directed the jury that they must be satisfied of the truth of each account before considering the similar fact evidence. The court examined the principles governing the admission of similar fact evidence and the circumstances in which a warning about the risk of concoction is necessary.

The court considered that the trial judge had properly directed the jury that they must be satisfied of the truth of each account before considering the similar fact evidence. It held that the trial judge was not required to give a specific warning about the risk of concoction, as the directions given were sufficient to ensure that the jury would not improperly consider the similar fact evidence. The court found that the trial judge's directions adequately protected the appellant's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.