R v WQ

The accused, WQ, faced a criminal trial in the County Court of Victoria involving multiple complaints of sexual assault. The court was tasked with determining whether separate trials for each complaint should be permitted, given the risk of contamination if the evidence was heard together. The central legal issue was whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk of prejudice if the complaints were heard together. The court considered the principle that evidence of other acts could be prejudicial but also recognised its potential to establish a pattern of behaviour, which could be crucial in determining the likelihood of the accused's guilt.

The court examined whether the evidence from the different complaints could demonstrate a common pattern of behaviour that would be probative of the accused's guilt. It found that while the individual acts could be highly probative, there was insufficient evidence to establish a pattern across all the complaints. The court concluded that the risk of contamination, where evidence from one complaint might unfairly influence the jury's assessment of the others, was too high. Therefore, the tendency evidence was deemed inadmissible unless it was necessary to establish a fact in issue other than the accused's disposition to commit the offence.

The court denied the application for separate trials, ruling that the probative value of the evidence when considered together did not substantially outweigh the risk of unfair prejudice. The court found that the evidence from the multiple complaints, when presented together, could effectively demonstrate the accused's propensity to commit the offences without unduly prejudicing the jury against the accused. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury could properly assess the evidence in its entirety while also protecting the rights of the accused to a fair trial.