How have the courts in Australia treated prior misconduct evidence in a sexual assault case?

The need for such instruction flows from the nature of similar fact evidence. The authorities are unanimous that evidence of prior misconduct by the accused is attended by special dangers. The greatest is the risk of prejudice to the accused, since an inference may all too readily be drawn from the fact that the accused committed offences in the past, that he committed the offence charged against him. That general inference our law forbids. It permits such evidence to be adduced only where it has special relevance quite apart from the general inference that because the accused acted wrongly in the past he is likely to have acted wrongly on the matters charged: Makin v. A.G. for New South Wales, [1894] A.C. 57 at 65 (P.C.).