R v Healy

The appellant, Harold John Healy, is charged with sexual offences against two girls, one aged between 13 and 14 years, and the other 16 years. The charges relate to two separate incidents occurring at Centrepoint, a community where the appellant was a senior member involved in teenage counselling sessions. Prior to the trial, the appellant sought severance of the counts involving the first complainant, P, from those relating to the second complainant, F. The High Court declined to order severance on the basis that the evidence of each complainant was admissible as propensity evidence in relation to the charges concerning the other complainant against the appellant. The appellant sought leave to appeal against that decision under s 379A of the Crimes Act 1961, arguing that severance should have been ordered because the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed any probative value. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal focused on the statutory basis for the admissibility of propensity evidence under s 43 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Court held that the Judge had correctly assessed the probative value of the evidence against the risk of prejudice, considering the similarity and unusual features of the alleged offending. The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's argument that the evidence lacked probative value given the issues in dispute and concluded that the Judge had appropriately balanced the competing interests.