R v Brendan John Riordan [2006] NSWDC 58

R v Brendan John Riordan [2006] NSWDC 58

The evidence of the injuries sustained by each child, and supporting expert opinions as to the cause and mechanism, are sufficiently similar and occurred in substantially similar circumstances such that they are admissible as coincidence evidence. The probative value of this evidence on the question of intentional infliction of injury by a person substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect and meets the statutory and common law tests for admissibility. Accordingly, separate trials are unnecessary and all counts should be tried together.

Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Brendan John Riordan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Severance and Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence
Outcome
Application for separate trials refused; coincidence evidence admissible in limited form
Legal Topics
Severance of Trials, Coincidence Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Application of Evidence Act 1995, Assessment of Probative Value Versus Prejudice
Criminal Law Evidence Severance of Trials Coincidence Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Application of Evidence Act 1995 Assessment of Probative Value Versus 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Brendan John Riordan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Severance and Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether separate trials should be ordered for the indictment counts against Brendan John Riordan
  2. 2 Whether 'coincidence evidence' relating to injuries of three child victims is admissible for all counts
  3. 3 Whether the probative value of the proposed evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect under Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the injuries sustained by each child, and supporting expert opinions as to the cause and mechanism, are sufficiently similar and occurred in substantially similar circumstances such that they are admissible as coincidence evidence. The probative value of this evidence on the question of intentional infliction of injury by a person substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect and meets the statutory and common law tests for admissibility. Accordingly, separate trials are unnecessary and all counts should be tried together.

Court Disposition

Application for separate trials refused; coincidence evidence admissible in limited form

Orders

  • Application by the accused for separate trials refused.
  • The Crown is permitted to adduce, as coincidence evidence, evidence of the injuries sustained by each child and the means of infliction, but medical practitioners may not express an opinion as to whether injuries were inflicted by intentional application of force by any person.