R v Shral CA208/06

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Trevor Wayne Shral, appeals against the decision of Judge BP Callaghan to admit the evidence of his stepdaughter, M, into the trial. The appellant faces multiple counts of sexual violation and indecent assault by two sisters, N and C. The Crown seeks to introduce M's evidence, who alleges she was sexually abused by the appellant 13-15 years prior, as similar fact evidence. The defence appeals against the decision of the Judge to admit the evidence of M.

The legal issues in this case are the admissibility of similar fact evidence and whether the probative value of M's allegations against the appellant outweighs any illegitimate prejudicial effect. The Court of Appeal considers the principles governing the admission of similar fact evidence and whether there is a sufficient factual link between M's evidence and the evidence of the complainants. The Court also considers the circumstances in which the offending took place and when.

The Court of Appeal allows the appeal and quashes the rulings made by Judge Callaghan. The Court finds that the probative value of M's allegations against the appellant does not outweigh any illegitimate prejudicial effect. The separation in time and circumstances reduces the probative value of the evidence. Moreover, there is a substantial risk of illegitimate prejudice if the evidence is introduced, as it involves the most serious of the allegations made against the appellant. The potential for unfairness to the appellant is magnified by the historical nature of the evidence.

The final orders are that the appeal is allowed, and the rulings made by Judge Callaghan are quashed. The evidence of M should not be admitted at the trial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.