RH v R

The case of RH v R involved an appeal against conviction by the respondent, RH, who was found guilty of multiple indecent assault charges. The trial judge admitted evidence of the respondent's prior guilty plea and admissions to aggravated indecent assault in a separate case. RH argued that the evidence was inadmissible under the uniform evidence law, which requires that evidence of prior offences be relevant to an issue in the current case. RH also argued that the risk of contamination or concoction between the complainants made the evidence unreliable.

The court considered whether the prior offence evidence was relevant to an issue in the current case and whether the risk of contamination or concoction between the complainants made the evidence unreliable. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the respondent's propensity to commit indecent assaults and that the risk of contamination or concoction was minimal. The court also considered whether the evidence was admissible under the uniform evidence law, which requires that the probative value of the evidence outweigh any prejudicial effect it may have. The court found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court held that the evidence of the respondent's prior guilty plea and admissions was admissible and that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the respondent's propensity to commit indecent assaults and that the risk of contamination or concoction was minimal. The court also found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence and that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.