R v Dann (2000) 123 ACrimR 506

Facts: Defendant (D) (Dann) was convicted of having sexual intercourse with his 7 year old step-son. He was not charged with 3 other incidents of sexual assault, but evidence of them was given by the complainant (C). The prosecution (Pr) adduced medical expert evidence of the sexual assault (C had dilation of of the anus which would be consistent with sexual abuse or constipation). As cause was unclear, the evidence could be of some value to D (i.e. it could have been constipation, not sexual assault). D argued that reception of this evidence required cross-examination (CE) and it became a distracting focus of the hearing because it was upsetting to jury (therefore, it was unfairly prejudicial). 

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now