R v NS [2020] NSWDC 608

R v NS [2020] NSWDC 608

The tendency evidence, with the notice amended to remove the words concerning young girls who referred to or regarded the accused as 'uncle', had significant probative value because the alleged acts shared common features including the location, young female complainants or witness, night-time circumstances, opportunistic conduct, and similar touching, and the identified prejudice did not amount to unfair prejudice. Because the complainants' evidence was cross-admissible, separate trials were not in the interests of justice. The accused did not identify new information requiring JU to be recalled, did not show a need to clarify her original evidence, and the potential disadvantage from...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion Before Retrial on Amended Indictment
Outcome
The accused's notice of motion was dismissed; the application under s 306J(1) was dismissed; the tendency evidence was admissible subject to amendment of the Crown's notice; and the severance application was refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Sever Indictment' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'complainant Compellability' "use of Record of Complainant's Evidence at Retrial"]
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['application to Sever Indictment' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'complainant Compellability' "use of Record of Complainant's Evidence at Retrial"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion Before Retrial on Amended Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown's amended tendency notice dated 18 August 2020 should be struck out or the tendency evidence admitted." 'Whether the indictment should be severed so that counts relating to each complainant be heard separately.' 'Whether JU and KK should be compelled under s 306J(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to give evidence at the further trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tendency evidence, with the notice amended to remove the words concerning young girls who referred to or regarded the accused as 'uncle', had significant probative value because the alleged acts shared common features including the location, young female complainants or witness, night-time circumstances, opportunistic conduct, and similar touching, and the identified prejudice did not amount to unfair prejudice. Because the complainants' evidence was cross-admissible, separate trials were not in the interests of justice. The accused did not identify new information requiring JU to be recalled, did not show a need to clarify her original evidence, and the potential disadvantage from...

Court Disposition

The accused's notice of motion was dismissed; the application under s 306J(1) was dismissed; the tendency evidence was admissible subject to amendment of the Crown's notice; and the severance application was refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for orders under s 306J(1) is dismissed.' 'The notice of motion is dismissed.']