R v Haines, Craig [2008] NSWDC 259

R v Haines, Craig [2008] NSWDC 259

The charges were properly joined because the alleged offences were linked by close temporal and geographic proximity, the Toomelah community context, the complainants' identification of the accused as an uninvited person, and especially the distinctive conduct alleged against the accused of pretending to be asleep when confronted. That conduct was sufficiently distinctive to be admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence and as an admission by conduct. The evidence did not disclose a reasonable possibility of deliberate concoction by Karina M and Kirsten M concerning the sleeping ruse, so the probative value necessary for admissibility and joinder was not destroyed. The application to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding on Indictment Involving Charges Relating to Unlawful Sexual Conduct / Application for Severance of a Charge From the Indictment
Outcome
Application for severance refused.
Legal Topics
['indictment' 'severance of Charges' 'joinder of Counts' 'indecent Assault' 'breaking and Entering With Intent to Indecently Assault' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'concoction']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['indictment' 'severance of Charges' 'joinder of Counts' 'indecent Assault' 'breaking and Entering With Intent to Indecently Assault' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'concoction']

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 Proceeding on Indictment Involving Charges Relating to Unlawful Sexual Conduct / Application for Severance of a Charge From the Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the charge alleging offending against Lauralee M should be severed from the indictment containing charges concerning Karina M and Kirsten M.' 'Whether there was a sufficient nexus between the charges to justify joinder in one indictment.' 'Whether evidence of the accused pretending to be asleep when confronted was admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence.' 'Whether there was a reasonable possibility of concoction affecting the probative value or admissibility of the tendency or coincidence evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The charges were properly joined because the alleged offences were linked by close temporal and geographic proximity, the Toomelah community context, the complainants' identification of the accused as an uninvited person, and especially the distinctive conduct alleged against the accused of pretending to be asleep when confronted. That conduct was sufficiently distinctive to be admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence and as an admission by conduct. The evidence did not disclose a reasonable possibility of deliberate concoction by Karina M and Kirsten M concerning the sleeping ruse, so the probative value necessary for admissibility and joinder was not destroyed. The application to...

Court Disposition

Application for severance refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to sever the charges was declined.' 'The Crown was permitted to lead as tendency or coincidence evidence the circumstances of the accused pretending to be asleep.']