RR v The Queen

The case of *RR v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, RR, against his conviction for a sexual offence. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior sexual misconduct. Specifically, the court considered whether this evidence was relevant to establishing the applicant's propensity to commit the offence charged, and if its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. The central legal issue was the application of the 'tendency' or 'propensity' rule in criminal proceedings, and the circumstances under which evidence of prior bad character might be admitted.

In their joint judgment, Gummow and Kiefel JJ analysed the principles governing the admission of evidence of prior misconduct. They affirmed that such evidence is generally inadmissible if its sole purpose is to demonstrate the accused's bad character or propensity to commit the offence. However, they noted that evidence of prior acts may be admitted if it has a sufficient degree of relevance to a fact in issue in the current proceedings, beyond merely showing a propensity. The court found that the evidence in question did not possess the necessary degree of relevance to any issue in the trial, and its admission was therefore an error.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.