R v AC [2018] NSWDC 127

R v AC [2018] NSWDC 127

The Crown was not granted an extension of time or dispensation from the tendency notice requirements because it gave no satisfactory explanation for its failure to comply with the original service requirement or the order of 22 February 2018, and because the interests of justice, including the rule of law and compliance by the Crown with court rules and orders, weighed against permitting reliance on the late notice. Without an effective tendency notice, the evidence of other complainants was not cross-admissible in the trials of counts concerning each specific complainant, so the counts were severed for separate consecutive trials.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on Indictment Alleging Sexual Offences / Pre Trial Ruling on Notice of Motion for Separate Trials and Tendency Notice Issues
Outcome
The accused's notice of motion was granted; the Crown's constructive or implied application for an extension of time or dispensation from tendency notice requirements was refused; the counts were ordered to be severed and tried separately and consecutively.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'tendency Notices' 'extension of Time or Dispensing With Notice Requirements' 'severance of Counts' 'separate Back to Back Trials' 'electronic Filing of Indictments']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['tendency Evidence' 'tendency Notices' 'extension of Time or Dispensing With Notice Requirements' 'severance of Counts' 'separate Back to Back Trials' 'electronic Filing of Indictments']

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 Proceedings on Indictment Alleging Sexual Offences / Pre Trial Ruling on Notice of Motion for Separate Trials and Tendency Notice Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted, by extension of time or dispensing with notice requirements, to rely on a tendency notice served after the required time and after a court direction.' 'Whether, absent an effective tendency notice, the evidence of other complainants was cross-admissible on counts relating to a specific complainant.' 'Whether the counts involving each complainant should be severed and tried separately and consecutively.' 'Whether persistent Crown non-compliance with statutory and court-ordered tendency notice requirements affected the interests of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown was not granted an extension of time or dispensation from the tendency notice requirements because it gave no satisfactory explanation for its failure to comply with the original service requirement or the order of 22 February 2018, and because the interests of justice, including the rule of law and compliance by the Crown with court rules and orders, weighed against permitting reliance on the late notice. Without an effective tendency notice, the evidence of other complainants was not cross-admissible in the trials of counts concerning each specific complainant, so the counts were severed for separate consecutive trials.

Court Disposition

The accused's notice of motion was granted; the Crown's constructive or implied application for an extension of time or dispensation from tendency notice requirements was refused; the counts were ordered to be severed and tried separately and consecutively.

Orders

  • ['The Counts on the indictment in this matter shall be severed and tried separately (and consecutively), as follows: (a) a trial in respect of the counts alleging offences against CC. (b) a trial in respect of the counts alleging offences against CR. (c) a trial in respect of the count alleging an offence against...