Severance application — possession of objectionable publications — sexual offending — propensity evidence — evidence in alternate mode — Evidence Act 2006, ss 6, 7, 8, 40, 43 & 103 — Films, Videos and Publications Act 1993. The defendant bought an application seeking for severance of sexual abuse charges against two complainants under 16 years of age and charges of possessing objectionable material. The defendant also opposed one of his complainants giving evidence in an alternate mode (via her evidential video interview). The objectionable material charges were divided into two categories: child sexual abuse images and images depicting bestiality. It was alleged that during the sexual offending against one of the complainants, the defendant made the complainant view objectionable images of bestiality. On the severance of charges relating to the bestiality images, the Judge weighed the relevance and prejudicial effect of the evidence, as captured by ss7 and 8 of the Evidence Act,holding that the images were admissible as they independently corroborated the complainant's allegations, as their existence on the defendant's computer at the time of his arrest supported the complainant's account. On whether the child sexual abuse images charges should be severed, the Judge held that they were not admissible and should be severed. The Judge, with the aid of case law, differentiated these images from the bestiality images as the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect they would have on the jury. Neither of the complainants alleged being shown images exploiting young girls, meaning their probative value was not high but the prejudicial effect was significant. On the mode of evidence application, one of the complainants sought to give her evidence in chief through her evidential video interview (EVI). Consent had already been granted to give evidence behind a screen in the courtroom, and the defendant opposed the EVI application. The Crown submitted that it should be granted because the offending occurred a decade or more ago and it would compel her to remember something that happened when she was a child, spanning several years and locations. It also claimed that it would minimise stress and the complaint had stated in her EVI that she has incidents of "blank-outs" when talking about the offending. Finally, the Crown also argued that it would effectively amount to a memory test. The Judge did not agree with the final submission as it is inherent to a fair trial to scrutinise the complaint's reliability, however, the Judge agreed that the complainants concern of "blank-outs" warranted granting the application. The Judge noted that while it was not evidence of trauma as characterised in s 103(3)(c), s 103(3)(j) gave the Judge discretion that mode of evidence can be altered on "any other ground likely to promote the purpose of the Act". In this instance, allowing the EVI would promote fairness to parties and witnesses, as the defendant still has cross-examination available to him and the complaint's evidence will not be unfairly hindered. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * * Judgment Date: 15 June 2018.