Regina v White

In Regina v White, the accused faced charges related to sexual offences against three complainants, two of whom were under the age of 16 at the time of the offences, and one who was just 16 years old. The charges were tried jointly, and the evidence was admitted under section 98 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court had to consider the admissibility of evidence of related events, including the use of stupefying drugs and similar facts, in the context of the coincidence rule. The court also had to determine if further directions were necessary regarding the impermissible use of such evidence, given that the considerations under section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not arise during the trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of related events was admissible under section 98, and if so, whether it could be used to prove the coincidence rule. The court needed to assess whether the evidence of stupefying drugs and other similar facts was relevant and necessary to establish the accused's propensity to commit the sexual offences. Furthermore, the court had to consider if additional directions were necessary under section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995, despite the absence of such considerations during the trial.

The court held that the evidence of related events was admissible under section 98 of the Evidence Act 1995, and it could be used to establish the coincidence rule. The judge found that the evidence of stupefying drugs and other similar facts was relevant and necessary to prove the accused's propensity to commit the sexual offences against the complainants. The court also determined that no further directions were necessary regarding the impermissible use of evidence, as the considerations under section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not arise in the trial. Regarding the sentence, the judge imposed an additional term of imprisonment for the 64-year-old offender, which was within the judge's discretion.

The court upheld the conviction and imposed a sentence on the accused. The judge found that the evidence of related events was admissible and relevant, and the coincidence rule was applicable. The court also determined that no further directions were necessary regarding the impermissible use of evidence. The sentence imposed was within the judge's discretion, considering the offender's age and the nature of the offences.