Regina v R.N [2005] NSWCCA 413

Regina v R.N [2005] NSWCCA 413

The challenged ruling was erroneous because, after accepting that the evidence was capable of being characterised as coincidence evidence with significant probative value and substantial similarity, the trial judge did not precisely identify any prejudicial effect or transparently balance that prejudice against the evidence's probative value as required by s 101(2). The three factors relied on did not individually or together support a rational inference of a reasonable possibility of concoction sufficient to justify exclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Under Section 5 F(3)a of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against an Evidentiary Ruling in a Criminal Trial / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Appeal From a District Court Pre Jury Ruling Excluding Evidence
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; challenged ruling set aside.
Legal Topics
['coincidence Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 98' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 101(2)' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect' 'concoction' 'voir Dire']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['coincidence Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 98' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 101(2)' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect' 'concoction' 'voir Dire']

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

Crown Appeal Under Section 5 F(3)a of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against an Evidentiary Ruling in a Criminal Trial / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Appeal From a District Court Pre Jury Ruling Excluding Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Court erred in excluding the complainant's mother's evidence, proposed as coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the trial judge properly identified any prejudicial effect and balanced it against the significant probative value of the evidence under s 101(2).' 'Whether the stated factors gave rise to a reasonable possibility of concoction between the complainant and her mother.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged ruling was erroneous because, after accepting that the evidence was capable of being characterised as coincidence evidence with significant probative value and substantial similarity, the trial judge did not precisely identify any prejudicial effect or transparently balance that prejudice against the evidence's probative value as required by s 101(2). The three factors relied on did not individually or together support a rational inference of a reasonable possibility of concoction sufficient to justify exclusion.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; challenged ruling set aside.

Orders

  • ["In any report of the judgment and in any report of the proceedings in the Court, the respondent, the complainant and the complainant's mother are to be referred to only by the initials used to describe them in the judgment." 'Crown appeal allowed.' 'Challenged ruling set aside.']