R v KK [2018] NSWDC 506

R v KK [2018] NSWDC 506

Counts 1–3 concerning HC and counts 4–7 concerning CC and SS are to be tried separately because the evidence of HC is not admissible in proof of guilt relating to CC and SS and vice versa; tendency evidence does not have significant probative value to justify joinder; prejudice to the accused cannot be overcome by legal directions; and, admittance of tendency evidence is limited to contexts where its probative value outweighs prejudice and is relevant to facts in issue.

Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown); Accused: KK
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Orders / Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment be separated from Counts 4 to 7; tendency evidence generally not admissible between the separated counts; trial by judge not ordered; s 146 issues not ruled on at this stage.
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Separate Trials, Indictment Procedure
Criminal Law Evidence Tendency Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Separate Trials Indictment Procedure

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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Prosecutor

KK

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Orders / Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of tendency evidence under Evidence Act 1995 s 97 and s 101
  2. 2 Whether counts on the indictment should be tried together or separately under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 21 and s 29
  3. 3 Whether the probative value of tendency evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect

Ratio Decidendi

Counts 1–3 concerning HC and counts 4–7 concerning CC and SS are to be tried separately because the evidence of HC is not admissible in proof of guilt relating to CC and SS and vice versa; tendency evidence does not have significant probative value to justify joinder; prejudice to the accused cannot be overcome by legal directions; and, admittance of tendency evidence is limited to contexts where its probative value outweighs prejudice and is relevant to facts in issue.

Court Disposition

Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment be separated from Counts 4 to 7; tendency evidence generally not admissible between the separated counts; trial by judge not ordered; s 146 issues not ruled on at this stage.

Orders

  • Counts 1–3 to be tried separately from Counts 4–7.
  • The order of prosecutions is at the discretion of the Director and Crown Prosecutor.