Roach v The Queen

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJKERRY RAYMOND ROACH  APPELLANTANDTHE QUEEN  RESPONDENTRoach v The Queen [2011] HCA 124 May 2011B41/2010ORDERAppeal dismissed.On appeal from the Supreme Court of QueenslandRepresentationM J Byrne QC with H C Fong and C W Heaton for the appellant (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)A W Moynihan SC with A D Anderson for the respondent (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSRoach v The QueenCriminal law – Evidence – Propensity evidence – Admissibility and relevance – Where appellant charged with assault occasioning bodily harm – Where trial judge admitted evidence of other assaults by appellant upon complainant during their relationship pursuant to s 132B of Evidence Act 1977 (Q) ("Act") making admissible relevant evidence of history of domestic relationship – Where s 130 of Act preserved trial judge's discretion to exclude evidence where admission would be unfair to accused – Whether rule in Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 to be applied in determining admissibility under s 132B or exercising discretion under s 130 – If evidence admitted, whether jury ought to have been directed they could not rely upon evidence unless satisfied of its truth beyond reasonable doubt.Words and phrases – "domestic violence", "prejudicial", "probative", "propensity", "relationship evidence", "unfairness".Evidence Act 1977 (Q), ss 130, 132B.FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ.   The appellant was convicted by a jury...