Stubley v The State of Western Australia

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial. The appellant, a former psychiatrist, was charged with sexual misconduct against two former patients, JG and CL. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence from three other former patients, LB, MM, and AW, regarding alleged uncharged acts of sexual misconduct by the appellant. The central dispute revolved around whether this evidence of uncharged acts possessed sufficient probative value to be admissible under section 31A of the *Evidence Act 1906* (WA).

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, it was necessary to determine whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the evidence of the three uncharged acts had "significant probative value" as required by section 31A(2)(a) of the *Evidence Act 1906* (WA). Secondly, the Court considered whether the appellant's concession of having consensual sexual activity with the complainants constituted an admission for the purposes of section 32 of the *Evidence Act 1906* (WA), and if so, whether this concession rendered consent the sole live issue at trial.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence of the uncharged acts. The Court reasoned that for propensity or relationship evidence to have "significant probative value" under section 31A(2)(a), it must be capable of rationally affecting the assessment of the probability of a relevant fact in issue to a significant extent, requiring more than mere relevance. The Court concluded that the evidence of the uncharged acts, when considered in light of the specific allegations and the appellant's defence, did not meet this threshold of significant probative value. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.