KRM v The Queen [2001] HCA 11

KRM v The Queen [2001] HCA 11

There is no universal requirement for a propensity warning in trials involving multiple sexual offence counts including a s 47A relationship offence; ordinarily, a 'separate consideration' direction is sufficient unless some feature of the evidence or circumstances creates a risk of propensity reasoning. In this case, no such risk was found, and the directions given were adequate.

Parties
Appellant: KRM; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before High Court From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Propensity Evidence, Relationship Offences, Judicial Warnings, Multiple Counts, Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Evidence Propensity Evidence Relationship Offences Judicial Warnings Multiple Counts Sexual Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KRM

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before High Court From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a propensity warning is required in cases involving multiple sexual offence counts including a s 47A relationship offence; Whether a propensity warning is required for individual acts forming basis of a s 47A charge; Admissibility and use of generalised evidence and uncharged acts in sexual offence trials; Operation and scope of s 47A Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Judicial discretion and fairness in jury directions

Ratio Decidendi

There is no universal requirement for a propensity warning in trials involving multiple sexual offence counts including a s 47A relationship offence; ordinarily, a 'separate consideration' direction is sufficient unless some feature of the evidence or circumstances creates a risk of propensity reasoning. In this case, no such risk was found, and the directions given were adequate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.