In Richard John McPhillamy v The Queen  HCA 52 (8 November 2018), the High Court of Australia has delivered its reasons for orders it made on 9 August 2018, allowing an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW, quashing the appellant's convictions and directing a new trial (see McPhillamy v R  NSWCCA 130 (14 June 2017)).
Following a trial before a judge and jury in 2015 in the NSW District Court (8 May 2015, King DCJ File Number(s): 2013/14004), the appellant had been convicted of six sexual offences alleged to have been committed between 1995 and 1996 against "A", an 11 year old altar boy. "A" was at the time under the appellant’s supervision, the appellant being an acolyte. According to "A's” evidence, the offences took place over two Saturday nights before mass when the appellant followed “A” into the public toilet at the church.
Evidence was not given by the appellant at trial. The appellant's claimed that "A" had made up the allegations to support his claim for compensation from the Catholic Church. The appellant further claimed that “A” knew that the appellant had been previously charged with sexual offences against boys, although he did not know the details of those offences. Further, the appellant claimed "A" had previously told police that he had falsely stated in his compensation application that the appellant had anally penetrated him.
The prosecution led tendency evidence from two men, "B" and "C". The evidence of B and C was that in 1985, "B" and "C" had been 13 years old and were boarding students at a college at which the appellant was then an assistant housemaster. In their evidence "B" and "C" indicated that they had separately sought out the appellant when they felt homesick and the appellant had then comforted them in the appellant's room before committing sexual acts against them. At trial in relation to the offences against "A", the appellant did not challenge the evidence of "B" or "C" and the jury were instructed that the prosecution relied on the tendency evidence as demonstrating the appellant's ". . . sexual interest in male children in their early teenage years who were under his supervision".
The appellant appealed against his convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal (see  NSWCCA 130). The appellant challenged the admission of the tendency evidence. Normally, tendency evidence is not admissible unless the court considers that it possesses "significant probative value". In the Court of Criminal Appeal a majority of the Court found that the tendency evidence strongly supported the prosecution case and had been rightly admitted.
The appellant sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. The grounds for appeal were:
• The majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding that the tendency evidence had significant probative value.
• The majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding that the probative value of the tendency evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect.
Special leave was granted and the appellant appealed to the High Court.
The High Court held that, while the tendency evidence was capable of establishing that the appellant had a sexual interest in young teenage boys, it did not meet the threshold requirement of significant probative value in circumstances in which there was no evidence that the asserted tendency had manifested itself in the decade prior to the commission of the alleged offending.
The tendency evidence rose no higher than to insinuate that, because the appellant had sexually offended against "B" and "C" ten years before, in different circumstances, he was the kind of person who was more likely to have committed the offences that "A" alleged. It was not, however, capable of affecting to a significant extent the assessment of the likelihood that the appellant committed the offences alleged by "A". From the majority decision at para  and para 
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.
Richard John McPhillamy v The Queen  HCA 52 (8 November 2018) and associated court summaries and documents
McPhillamy v R  NSWCCA 130 (14 June 2017)
FREE legislation news, delivered weekly.
Sign up now.#WeLoveLegislation Tweets
NEW information resources - great for training.