RHB v The Queen

The appellant, RHB, appealed against an interlocutory decision of the County Court of Victoria which rejected his application to exclude evidence of sexual offences committed against his daughters from his trial for sexual offences against his granddaughter. The nature of the dispute was whether the court could consider this evidence under the Evidence Act 2008, specifically sections 97(1) and 101. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria heard the matter.

The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the sexual offences against the daughters was admissible as tendency evidence in the trial of the appellant for the sexual offences against his granddaughter. The court had to consider the relevance and probative value of the evidence under section 97(1) of the Evidence Act, and whether it was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 101. The appellant argued that the evidence of the sexual offences against his daughters was not relevant to the trial of the sexual offences against his granddaughter, and that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The court held that the evidence of the sexual offences against the daughters was relevant and probative of the appellant's propensity to commit sexual offences against young females, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court noted that the evidence was relevant to the issue of identity, as it tended to show that the appellant had a propensity to commit sexual offences against young females, and that this propensity was not confined to his relationship with his granddaughter. The court also noted that the evidence was necessary to rebut the appellant's defence that the sexual offences against his granddaughter were the result of a consensual relationship. The court held that the evidence was admissible under section 97(1) of the Evidence Act, and that its admission did not breach section 101.

The court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the interlocutory decision of the County Court. The court held that the County Court had not erred in law in admitting the evidence of the sexual offences against the daughters, and that the appeal was without merit. The court noted that the appellant's arguments were speculative and did not address the specific circumstances of the case. The court held that the County Court had correctly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence, and that the appeal was an abuse of process. The court dismissed the appeal with costs.