Application to join charges — admissibility of evidence — propensity evidence — sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection — indecent act on child under 12 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 101 & 138 — Evidence Act 2006, ss 40 & 43 — Johnson v R [2018] NZCA 187 — Churchis v R [2014] NZCA 281. The defendant faced charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and doing an indecent act on child under 12. It was alleged that on two separate occasions the defendant had offended against two different children. The first complainant alleged the defendant had touched her vagina on two instances, both over and under her clothes when she was 11. The second complainant alleged the defendant had exposed his penis to her when she was 6. The Crown applied to join the charges. The Crown also applied to introduce propensity evidence in the form of statements from two witnesses who alleged the defendant had done similar things to them. In order to join the charges the Court had to grant leave. It was submitted by the Crown that both complainants' evidence was cross-admissible on a propensity basis, so it should be heard together. It was submitted the allegations showed a pattern of sexual offending against young girls within a family context. The Judge disagreed with this submission, finding that the age difference between the complainants at the time and lack of touching in the second complainant's allegation distinguished the charges. Furthermore, the evidence of the first complainant, which involved more serious allegations, would be too prejudicial against the defendant in relation to the allegations against the second complainant. In the interests of justice, the charges had to be heard separately. In terms of the admissibility of witness statements, the Crown was only partially successful. Witness 1 alleged the defendant had crept into her room at night and exposed and caressed his penis in front of her. The evidence was not admissible in relation to the first complainant, but was to the second complainant as their allegations showed a similar proclivity for exposing genitalia to young girls. Witness 2 alleged that when she was around 6 the defendant made her sit on his lap while he had an erection. The Crown acknowledged this evidence was unlikely to meet the threshold of propensity evidence and the Judge declined the application to admit it. Judgment Date: 3 December 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *