R v P CA73/04

The respondent in this case faces two charges of indecent assault against a girl aged between 12 and 16 years. The Crown seeks leave to appeal a pre-trial ruling that excludes certain evidence from the trial. The appeal concerns the admissibility of evidence from Ms D, a cousin of the complainant, who alleges that the respondent had a sexual relationship with her when she was 14 years old. The Crown argues that this evidence is relevant to support the complainant's credibility, while the respondent contends that the evidence is prejudicial and of limited probative value.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court judge correctly exercised his discretion in excluding Ms D's evidence and whether the evidence's probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. The Court found that Ms D's account, which suggests the events may have been consensual, is qualitatively different from the alleged offences in this case. Additionally, the 11-year gap between the events and the current charges further diminished the probative value of the evidence. The Court concluded that the Judge's decision was correct and that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Court's ruling. The final orders of the Court did not alter the pre-trial ruling excluding Ms D's evidence from the trial. This decision highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between admitting evidence that supports a case and avoiding undue prejudice to the accused.