R v Goodwin (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 153

R v Goodwin (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 153

The challenged police interview questions and answers were relevant to the accused's state of mind concerning consent and his asserted perception of the complainant's and Ms Elliott's conduct. Ms Elliott's evidence had clear probative value as context and corroboration, and although prejudicial it was not unfairly prejudicial, particularly with a warning against impermissible tendency reasoning. After a juror tested positive for COVID-19, there was no course other than discharge, and with written consent from both parties it was appropriate for the trial to continue with nine jurors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial on Indictment Alleging Sexual Offences / Rulings During Trial on Evidence and Discharge of an Individual Juror
Outcome
The accused's evidentiary applications were refused or not accepted, the Crown was permitted to adduce the challenged evidence from Shaelene Elliott, and the trial was ordered to continue with nine jurors.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences' 'consent' 'police Interview Evidence' 'uncharged Conduct' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discharge of Juror' 'reduced Jury']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'jury Trials'] ['sexual Offences' 'consent' 'police Interview Evidence' 'uncharged Conduct' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discharge of Juror' 'reduced Jury']

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 Trial on Indictment Alleging Sexual Offences / Rulings During Trial on Evidence and Discharge of an Individual Juror

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether questions and answers in the accused's police interview should be excluded from evidence." 'Whether the Crown should be permitted to adduce evidence from Shaelene Elliott of alleged uncharged conduct described in paragraph [72] of her statement MFI 7.' 'Whether the trial should continue with nine jurors after discharge of a third juror who tested positive for COVID-19.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged police interview questions and answers were relevant to the accused's state of mind concerning consent and his asserted perception of the complainant's and Ms Elliott's conduct. Ms Elliott's evidence had clear probative value as context and corroboration, and although prejudicial it was not unfairly prejudicial, particularly with a warning against impermissible tendency reasoning. After a juror tested positive for COVID-19, there was no course other than discharge, and with written consent from both parties it was appropriate for the trial to continue with nine jurors.

Court Disposition

The accused's evidentiary applications were refused or not accepted, the Crown was permitted to adduce the challenged evidence from Shaelene Elliott, and the trial was ordered to continue with nine jurors.

Orders

  • ["The accused's application to exclude from the interview in which he participated with the police questions and answers 404 to 407 is refused." 'The Crown may adduce evidence from Shaelene Elliott evidence of the representations set forth in paragraph [72] of her statement MFI 7.' 'Upon the discharge of the third...