Abstract
This article explores, with reference to four recent New Zealand appellate court decisions, the use of evidence of prior non-sexual offending by a defendant against the same complainant offered to prove sexual offence charges. Such ‘relationship propensity evidence’ can be particularly crucial for explaining the defendant–complainant dynamic in cases involving intimate partner violence. However, in some cases, courts have applied traditional common law ‘similar fact’ notions of linkage and coincidence to exclude evidence of non-sexual offending in relation to sexual charges. We argue that this is an unsatisfactory outcome that is largely resultant from the governing provision being designed to assess similar fact reasoning. Rather, we submit that in the context of intimate partner violence, seemingly discrete and unrelated forms of violence should be understood as potentially linked by the underpinning dynamic of coercive control. This shift in characterisation of varying forms of violence—from discrete and dissimilar to connected by a dynamic of coercive control—will result in a more flexible approach to the cross-admissibility of relationship propensity evidence in appropriate cases, including when it comes to offering evidence of physical violence as probative of sexual offending.