The Queen v [ ] Clark

The case of The Queen v [ ] Clark is an appeal from the District Court's rulings under the Crimes Act 1961, specifically section 344A. The applicant has been indicted on two counts of sexual offending: the first involves an unlawful sexual connection with complainant A on or about 27 August 2003, and the second involves the rape of complainant B during September 2003. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the applicant's earlier conviction for indecent assault of a 17-year-old woman on 1 January 1997, which the District Court initially admitted.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the evidence of the 1997 offence was admissible as 'similar fact' evidence and whether the trials of the current charges should be severed. The Court examined the principles of admissibility of similar fact evidence, particularly the requirement for an underlying unity or commonality in the accused's behaviour. The Court found that the seven-year gap between the 1997 offence and the current charges did not meet the standard required for admissibility, thus setting aside the District Court's decision to admit this evidence. However, the Court upheld the District Court's decision not to sever the trials, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against the District Court's decision to admit the evidence of the 1997 offence, set aside that decision, and dismissed the appeal against the decision not to sever the trials. The Court emphasised that while the risk of collusion between complainants could be a factor, it was not sufficient to warrant a severance of the trials unless the risk was so high that no reasonable jury could disregard it. The Court found that the evidence of both complainants, when considered together, met the standard for admission, despite the risk of collusion.