[...] (2001) 206 CLR 221. [16] (1997) 191 CLR 275. [17] [2006] QCA 80. [18] R v HAB [2006] QCA 80 at para [12]. [19] R v HAB [2006] QCA 80 at paras [12] – [14]. [20] RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 [...]
[...] 150 CLR 580. Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461. Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303. R v HAB (CA 259/2005; Court of Appeal, 21 March 2006, unreported); [2006] QCA 80. RPS v The Queen [...]
[...] which are embedded in such evidence, and an injunction against impermissible propensity reasoning: R v HAB (CA 259/2005; Court of Appeal, 21 March 2006, unreported); [2006] QCA 80, [12] et seq . None [...]
[...] not the case: BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, 310; RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620, 637; R v HAB . There is no scope for the application of the proviso in a case such as this. The conviction [...]
[...] v The Queen ;[14] KRM v The Queen ;[15] BRS v The Queen [16] and on observations of McMurdo J in R v HAB ,[17] a case in which the appellant was tried on counts of indecent treatment of two child complainants [...]
[...] about the dangers inherent in that evidence. [56]Relevant passages from McMurdo Js reasons in R v HAB are set out above. But this is not a case in which the judge was required, relevantly, to [...]
[...] [Bs], their evidence, without [Cs], was clear and compelling. [59]This was not a case like R v HAB , in which the accused had acted indecently towards two complainants at different times over a [...]
[...] J and per Kirby J at 259, 260. [24] Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580 at 594. [25] Mule v R (2005) 79 ALJR 1573 at 1578; Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437 at 466. [26] (2001) 206 CLR 221 at [...]