Steadman v R (No 1)

The appellant was convicted of indecently assaulting a young girl under the age of 16. The case came before the court on appeal from a conviction in the County Court at first instance. The primary issue before the court was whether evidence of previous sexual conduct between the appellant and the complainant was improperly admitted as propensity evidence. The court was also required to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury about the use of such evidence were adequate.

The court considered that the evidence of previous sexual conduct was not properly admissible as propensity evidence. Such evidence can only be admitted if it is relevant to an issue other than the appellant's disposition to commit the offence. In this case, the court found that the evidence was improperly admitted to prove the appellant's propensity to commit the offence of indecent assault. The court also found that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of the evidence were inadequate. The judge did not sufficiently warn the jury that the evidence could not be used to prove the appellant's propensity to commit the offence, and that it could only be considered in the context of assessing the complainant's credibility.

The court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. The court held that the admission of the impugned evidence was a significant error that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court also held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate to ensure that the jury understood the limited purpose for which the evidence could be considered. The court concluded that the conviction could not stand and ordered a retrial to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial.