Admissibility of evidence — severance of charges — joint trial — propensity evidence — sexual conduct with a young person — sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection — indecency with a girl between 12 and 16 — indecent assault — Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 & 44 — Mohamed v R [2011] NZSC 52 — Robin v R [2013] NZCA 105. The defendant was facing a raft of charges, including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, sexual conduct with a young person and indecency with a girl aged between 12 and 16. The Crown alleged he had offended against his niece recently and his adopted sister in the late 1980s. One of the charges alleged the defendant indecently assaulted his adopted sister during a sexual encounter with two other people. The Crown applied to lead evidence about the adopted sister's involvement in that sexual encounter. The defendant applied to sever the sexual abuse charges against the niece from the set of charges relating to his adopted sister. Counsel for the defendant took a neutral stance on the Crown leading evidence of the sexual encounter. The Crown sought to lead the evidence to set the contextual narrative for the alleged touching. One of the participants in the encounter was going to give evidence for the Crown. It was accepted this evidence was admissible and could be led as it was directly relevant to some of the allegations. Without the evidence there would be no contextual narrative as to how the alleging touching came about. In relation to severing the charges, the Judge referenced case law and stated that if the evidence from both complainants was cross-admissible as propensity evidence, a joint trial had to be held. Propensity evidence is only admissible in relation to an issue in dispute if it has probative value which outweighs the risk of the evidence unfairly prejudicing the defendant. The defendant submitted there was no connection between each event alleged. There was a large time gap between alleged events, and the age gap between the defendant and each complainant was different. The alleged offending against the defendant's adopted sister occurred in the context of a group sexual encounter, while the alleged offending against his niece occurred when they were alone. In response, the Crown said the offending was similar as it showed the defendant had an unusual sexual interest in prepubescent girls with whom he had an interfamilial relationship. The complainants were the same age at the time of each alleged offence. This predilection was significant enough on its own to link the evidence to the alleged offending. Paedophiliac tendencies tend to remain even over long periods of time. The probative value of each complainant's evidence outweighed any risk to the defendant and the Judge stated careful direction to the jury would provide further protection. Due to the similar nature of the allegations the Judge decided the evidence of each complaint was cross-admissible as propensity evidence. In the interests of justice there had to be a joint trial, so the defendant's application to sever the charges was declined. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * * Judgment Date: 15 June 2018.