R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 18) [2015] NSWSC 1625

R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 18) [2015] NSWSC 1625

The evidence of C1 and C2 had significant probative value for tendency purposes and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect, permitting modified tendency directions for KM and A2 based on cross-admissibility between the complainants. The more imprecise body of evidence concerning KM's alleged broader conduct in the Dawoodi Bohra community did not justify a tendency direction. The similarities and dissimilarities between the events concerning C1 and C2, including the contested evidence that more than symbolic touching occurred, could support coincidence reasoning by the jury; that evidence had significant probative value and its probative value substantially...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Crown Application for Tendency and Coincidence Directions Concerning Evidence Already Before the Jury
Outcome
Tendency and coincidence directions to be given with respect to KM and A2, in modified form.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'female Genital Mutilation Offences' 'cross Admissibility of Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'female Genital Mutilation Offences' 'cross Admissibility of Evidence' 'jury Directions']

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 / Crown Application for Tendency and Coincidence Directions Concerning Evidence Already Before the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence already before the jury could be used for tendency purposes against KM and A2 under ss.97 and 101 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether evidence already before the jury could be used for coincidence purposes against KM and A2 under ss.98 and 101 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether evidence concerning C1 and C2 should be cross-admissible between counts for each complainant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of C1 and C2 had significant probative value for tendency purposes and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect, permitting modified tendency directions for KM and A2 based on cross-admissibility between the complainants. The more imprecise body of evidence concerning KM's alleged broader conduct in the Dawoodi Bohra community did not justify a tendency direction. The similarities and dissimilarities between the events concerning C1 and C2, including the contested evidence that more than symbolic touching occurred, could support coincidence reasoning by the jury; that evidence had significant probative value and its probative value substantially...

Court Disposition

Tendency and coincidence directions to be given with respect to KM and A2, in modified form.

Orders

  • ['A modified tendency direction based on the evidence of C1 and C2 is to be given with respect to KM.' 'No tendency direction is to be given by reference to the imprecise body of evidence concerning KM referred to at [13](b).' 'A modified tendency direction is to be given with respect to A2.' 'Modified coincidence...