Abbott (a pseudonym) v R [2017] NSWCCA 149

Abbott (a pseudonym) v R [2017] NSWCCA 149

The trial judge did not err in refusing to order separate trials, in admitting evidence, or in refusing to discharge the jury due to witness unresponsiveness or communications. The evidence was cross-admissible, directions were strong and adequate to ameliorate prejudice, there was no miscarriage of justice or unfairness, and the convictions were supported by the evidence. The appeal is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'severance of Trials' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'cross Examination of Child Witnesses' 'jury Directions' 'fair Trial']
['criminal Law'] ['indecent Assault' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'severance of Trials' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'cross Examination of Child Witnesses' 'jury Directions' 'fair Trial']

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 Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to order separate trials for each complainant' 'Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence and refusing to discharge the jury where a complainant was unresponsive during cross-examination' 'Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury due to alleged improper communications with a complainant under cross-examination' 'Whether the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing to order separate trials, in admitting evidence, or in refusing to discharge the jury due to witness unresponsiveness or communications. The evidence was cross-admissible, directions were strong and adequate to ameliorate prejudice, there was no miscarriage of justice or unfairness, and the convictions were supported by the evidence. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted in respect of all grounds.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']