The Queen v Ian Harold King

The Queen, represented by the Crown, appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales against an order for separate trials. The appeal concerned the admissibility of similar fact evidence in a criminal proceeding where the accused, Ian Harold King, was charged with sexual offences, including engaging in sexual intercourse and committing acts of indecency without consent. The alleged negation of consent was based on the accused's abuse of a position of authority or trust, as contemplated by section 92P(1)(h) (now section 67(1)(h)) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW).

The central legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the proposed similar fact evidence was relevant to the question of whether the accused abused a position of authority or trust, and consequently, whether the ruling against its admission was correct. The Court was required to determine the admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence in the context of these specific charges and the alleged abuse of a position of authority or trust.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the ruling against the admission of the similar fact evidence was erroneous. The reasoning focused on the relevance of such evidence to establishing the alleged abuse of a position of authority or trust, which was a crucial element of the charges. The Court held that the similar fact evidence had the potential to demonstrate a pattern of conduct or a common design indicative of such abuse, thereby being relevant to the ultimate issues in the trial. Consequently, the orders made for separate trials were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was directed to determine the applications by the Crown to lead the tendency and coincidence evidence according to law, with any subsequent applications to sever the indictment to be dealt with in light of those determinations.