R v Meredith (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 247

R v Meredith (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 247

The complainant's representations, including the diary entry and interview answers referring together to Tim, Sausage and Ranga, supported an inference that the alleged sexual activity involving the other two men occurred about the time of the alleged offences and formed part of connected circumstances in which the accused's alleged offences were committed. The same considerations engaged s 294CB(6), because the accused might be unfairly prejudiced if prevented from cross-examining on whether the allegations against him reflected a transfer of experiences involving the other men.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application Under S 294 CB Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to Cross Examine Complainant About Representations of Sexual Activity Involving Two Other Men
Outcome
Application granted; leave given to cross-examine the complainant within the proposed scope.
Legal Topics
['prescribed Sexual Offences' 'admissibility of Evidence Relating to Sexual Experience' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'connected Set of Circumstances' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['prescribed Sexual Offences' 'admissibility of Evidence Relating to Sexual Experience' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'connected Set of Circumstances' 'unfair Prejudice']

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 / Application Under S 294 CB Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to Cross Examine Complainant About Representations of Sexual Activity Involving Two Other Men

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 294CB Criminal Procedure Act 1986 barred cross-examination of the complainant about representations that two other men sexually touched her.' 'Whether the evidence fell within the exception in s 294CB(4)(a) as sexual activity at or about the time of the alleged offences and part of a connected set of circumstances.' 'Whether the accused might be unfairly prejudiced under s 294CB(6) if the complainant could not be cross-examined about those representations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant's representations, including the diary entry and interview answers referring together to Tim, Sausage and Ranga, supported an inference that the alleged sexual activity involving the other two men occurred about the time of the alleged offences and formed part of connected circumstances in which the accused's alleged offences were committed. The same considerations engaged s 294CB(6), because the accused might be unfairly prejudiced if prevented from cross-examining on whether the allegations against him reflected a transfer of experiences involving the other men.

Court Disposition

Application granted; leave given to cross-examine the complainant within the proposed scope.

Orders

  • ['The Crown has leave, if it wishes, to examine the complainant about her representations that there was sexual activity to which she was subject as alleged of the man identified as Ranga and the man identified as Sausage.' "The accused's counsel has leave to question the complainant about her representations that...