Matthew Peter O'KEEFE v R; R v Matthew Peter O'KEEFE [2009] NSWCCA 121

Matthew Peter O'KEEFE v R; R v Matthew Peter O'KEEFE [2009] NSWCCA 121

The tendency evidence admitted by the trial judge relating to counts 1 to 6 was overly general and did not possess significant probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect in relation to counts 7 to 11. The judge failed to adequately assess the prejudicial effect and did not properly address the real issues concerning tendency evidence. Thus, the convictions must be quashed and a retrial ordered for counts 1 to 6, while acquittal is entered on counts 7 to 11 due to insufficient admissible evidence.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Matthew Peter O'Keefe; Respondent/appellant: R
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed, convictions and sentences quashed; acquittal on counts 7 to 11 and retrial ordered on counts 1 to 6.
Legal Topics
Conviction Appeal, Crown Appeal Against Sentence, Tendency Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Prejudice Vs Probative Value, Sufficiency of Reasons, Severance of Counts
Criminal Law Evidence Conviction Appeal Crown Appeal Against Sentence Tendency Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Prejudice Vs Probative Value Sufficiency of Reasons +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Peter O'Keefe

Appellant/respondent

R

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to sever counts 7 to 11 from the indictment
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of offences in counts 1 to 6 was admissible as tendency evidence in the trial of counts 7 to 11
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for ruling on severance and admissibility of tendency evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The tendency evidence admitted by the trial judge relating to counts 1 to 6 was overly general and did not possess significant probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect in relation to counts 7 to 11. The judge failed to adequately assess the prejudicial effect and did not properly address the real issues concerning tendency evidence. Thus, the convictions must be quashed and a retrial ordered for counts 1 to 6, while acquittal is entered on counts 7 to 11 due to insufficient admissible evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, convictions and sentences quashed; acquittal on counts 7 to 11 and retrial ordered on counts 1 to 6.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions is allowed and the convictions quashed.
  • The sentences imposed in the District Court are quashed.