AC v R [2016] NSWCCA 21

AC v R [2016] NSWCCA 21

The trial judge correctly permitted and confined the use of tendency evidence to two categories, and gave clear jury directions; any procedural shortcomings or lack of specificity did not cause a miscarriage of justice, particularly as evidence of the acts in question was unopposed and the jury's verdicts show no improper use. The guilty verdicts on the relevant counts were open to the jury based on the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Leave to Appeal and Merits
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'uncharged Acts' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'assault Offences' 'unreasonable Verdicts']

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 Leave to Appeal and Merits

  1. 1 ['Whether tendency evidence was admissible and of significant probative value' 'Whether probative value of tendency evidence outweighed prejudicial effect' 'Whether inconsistent and/or unreasonable verdicts required intervention' 'Whether count 10 was established beyond reasonable doubt']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly permitted and confined the use of tendency evidence to two categories, and gave clear jury directions; any procedural shortcomings or lack of specificity did not cause a miscarriage of justice, particularly as evidence of the acts in question was unopposed and the jury's verdicts show no improper use. The guilty verdicts on the relevant counts were open to the jury based on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']