R v Zappavigna

The appellant, Franco Zappavigna, appealed his conviction for persistent sexual exploitation of a child. The prosecution alleged that the appellant engaged in a sexual relationship with V, who was between 11 and 12 years old during the period of the alleged offending, between September 2012 and March 2013. The appeal concerned the admission and directions to the jury regarding evidence of the appellant's conduct after the alleged offending, specifically his attempts to contact V after she was placed in foster care, a Families SA directive prohibiting contact, and breaches of a home detention bail agreement.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were the admissibility of evidence concerning the appellant's post-offending conduct, and whether this evidence, which occurred outside the dates of the alleged offences and involved breaches of legal orders, was unduly prejudicial. The court was required to determine if this evidence had sufficient probative value to be admitted under section 34P of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), and if its admission, along with the implied findings of Families SA and the Magistrates Court, unfairly prejudiced the appellant in the eyes of the jury.

The court, comprising Kelly, Blue, and Stanley JJ, held that all the evidence before the jury was admissible. Kelly J, delivering the leading judgment, reasoned that the evidence of the appellant's continued attempts to contact V, despite legal prohibitions, was admissible as evidence of specific propensity and disposition. While the trial judge's directions on the use of this evidence were considered unduly narrow, they did not lead to a miscarriage of justice as they set a higher bar for the jury's consideration than necessary, thus only benefiting the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.