UD v The Queen

In the matter of UD v The Queen, the applicant, UD, sought leave to appeal against a conviction for sexual assault. The case was heard by Gordon J of the High Court of Australia. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during UD's trial.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of UD's prior sexual history, which the applicant argued was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. This raised questions about the proper application of the rules of evidence, particularly concerning the admissibility of character evidence and the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect.

Gordon J considered the principles governing the admission of evidence of prior sexual conduct under the relevant evidence legislation. Her Honour found that the evidence in question did not meet the threshold for admissibility as it was not sufficiently relevant to any issue in dispute and carried a significant risk of unfair prejudice to the applicant. Consequently, the admission of this evidence was deemed to be an error.

The Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and quashed the conviction. A retrial was ordered.