The Crown appealed from an order setting aside a rape conviction and directing a new trial after the trial judge admitted similar fact evidence of an earlier rape.
The accused admitted sexual intercourse but asserted actual consent or an honest belief in consent.
The Supreme Court held that the absence of consent by a previous complainant was irrelevant to the present complainant's lack of consent, and that prior misconduct evidence was inadmissible where its only value was to show the accused was the sort of person capable of disregarding non-consent.
The prior incident did not involve a similar claim of mistaken belief in consent, so the evidence could not properly rebut that defence.
The appeal was dismissed and the new trial order was upheld.
