An accused is charged with rape. He will claim that the complainant consented. The Crown can prove that on four previous occasions that selfsame accused has been tried on other counts of rape, but on all but one of them has been acquitted. The trial judge rules that, had the accused been convicted of all four earlier rapes, such evidence would have been admissible at the fifth trial under the similar fact evidence principles enunciated by the House of Lords in D.P.P. v. P [1991] 2 A.C. 447. The single earlier conviction, however, standing alone, does not qualify as admissible similar fact evidence. These, in essence, were the facts confronting the House of Lords in R. v. Z [2000] 3 W.L.R. 117, the general question for the House being: despite three of Z’s previous trials having resulted in acquittals, was the Crown entitled to lead evidence of all four earlier incidents, including testimony from the three complainants whose allegations had failed to persuade juries in the past?