Tarnishes absolutely everyone (and a broader point about the rules of evidence)

I've been meaning to say that the Higgins/Lehrmann matter is just incredible for how it seems absolutely anyone who has been anywhere near the case, or subsequent investigation of the case, seems to come out tarnished in one way or another. 

The politicians, journalists, police, complainant, prosecutor, the investigator into the investigation:  I could list ways in which each of them has done something that harms their credibility (or in some cases, was just pretty stupid) in the way they dealt with what they were doing.

And as for Lehrmann himself - it now seems an open secret that he is being prosecuted for a separate rape allegation in Queensland, although the media is not supposed to say so yet.   

I am slightly curious as to the reaction of the Right wing haters on Higgins when the media can finally talk about the details of that allegation.

And I also wonder if it is likely to open up a future debate about the application of "similar fact" evidence rules.

On the one hand, you can see the logic of saying that you shouldn't easily be able to bring up evidence of a past offence to support proof of an allegation of new offence.   (Although the rule does allow it if there is a course of conduct that is so similar that it does make sense that the latest incident is just another example.)

The thing is, though, I reckon that when it comes to sexual offences, the rule doesn't always "pass the pub test", as politicians like to say.  Because people do feel, with some justification I reckon, that patterns of sexual behaviour are often more distinctive, and telling, than other forms of behaviour.  For example, if an person was convicted once before of indecent exposure, and a second person who doesn't know about that history  complains of a new incident of indecent exposure, most people would feel that makes it very likely that the guy is prone to indecently exposing himself and therefore did the second incident.  Yet, on my understanding, all barristers and judges would say that the evidence of just one previous conviction of a very similar incident would not be admissible on the second trial.

I have personal knowledge (not from being the accused!) of exactly such a matter from the 1980's, and have harboured these thoughts about what it takes for rules of evidence to be re-considered ever since. (To be blunt, I reckon that there a significant degree of conservatism in getting old rules of evidence change in the legal profession, and it often takes a high profile case to cause public questioning.)

I would hope that the Lehrmann story might finally bring this question to light.   (Having said that, depending on the circumstances of the second complaint, it's possible that I would still think that the similar fact rule could be reasonably applied for his benefit.  None of us know enough of the details be to be able to judge yet.)   

Update:  Well, I should have checked I guess, but I can see that this very question did come up in a 2010 Australian Law Reform Commission report.  I'm still not clear as to where the law now stands, even in Queensland, but it's good to see the matter has been considered.