R v Wong, Zany [2010] NSWDC 32

R v Wong, Zany [2010] NSWDC 32

The tendency and coincidence evidence intended by the Crown does not have sufficient probative value to outweigh prejudicial effect, in part because similarities relied on are unremarkable among sexual offences and do not create a sufficient hallmark. Risk of concoction further justifies severance. Each complainant’s allegations are compartmentalised and lack a unifying trait beyond ethnicity, which is insufficient. Apology ceremony evidence is admissible only as direct admissions to each complainant but is otherwise limited to avoid prejudice.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Accused: Zany Wong
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Crown applications to lead coincidence and tendency evidence rejected; defence application for severance of indictment granted; certain portions of apology admitted, others excluded.
Legal Topics
Severance of Charges, Tendency Evidence, Coincidence Evidence, Admissibility of Apology, Exclusion of Evidence
Criminal Law Severance of Charges Tendency Evidence Coincidence Evidence Admissibility of Apology Exclusion of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Zany Wong

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown may lead tendency or coincidence evidence
  2. 2 Whether counts on the indictment should be severed such that each indictment refers to one complainant only
  3. 3 Admissibility of portions of an apology ceremony as evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The tendency and coincidence evidence intended by the Crown does not have sufficient probative value to outweigh prejudicial effect, in part because similarities relied on are unremarkable among sexual offences and do not create a sufficient hallmark. Risk of concoction further justifies severance. Each complainant’s allegations are compartmentalised and lack a unifying trait beyond ethnicity, which is insufficient. Apology ceremony evidence is admissible only as direct admissions to each complainant but is otherwise limited to avoid prejudice.

Court Disposition

Crown applications to lead coincidence and tendency evidence rejected; defence application for severance of indictment granted; certain portions of apology admitted, others excluded.

Orders

  • Crown application to lead coincidence evidence rejected
  • Crown application to lead tendency evidence rejected