Abstract
This dissertation seeks to argue that seemingly discrete, unrelated forms of violence, such as sexual and non-sexual violence, should be considered as interrelated, “broadly similar” offending, linked by the underlying theme of dominance on the part of the perpetrator. As such, different forms of violence should be considered cross-admissible relationship propensity evidence in the context of domestic and intimate partner violence. To illustrate this, Chapter One recounts the history and development of propensity evidence, from its origins in common law to its codification in the Evidence Act. I explain how propensity evidence has developed amid a focus on orthodox similar fact evidence, before examining how this has resulted in a limited understanding of relationship propensity evidence. I turn to four cases that have aided the development of relationship evidence, and highlight the necessity of this type of evidence in a domestic violence context.