R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50

R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50

The Judge erred by conflating the two steps required for assessing tendency and coincidence evidence, by treating Mr McCarthy's evidence in isolation, and by wrongly concluding that alleged co-offender evidence deprived the related events of significance for tendency or coincidence purposes. The related events were capable of supporting an inference that the offences were committed by the same offenders and, when considered with DNA, circumstantial and association evidence, were likely to be assigned significant probative value. Because the exclusion substantially weakened the prosecution case, the ruling excluding tendency and coincidence evidence was set aside. The separate trial ruling...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Pursuant to Ss 5 F(2) and 5 F(3 A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 From District Court Rulings Refusing Tendency and Coincidence Evidence and Allowing Separate Trials
Outcome
Crown appeal upheld; both District Court rulings of 11 March 2010 were set aside.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'severance of Indictment' 'separate Trials' 'interlocutory Crown Appeal' 'alleged Co Offender Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'severance of Indictment' 'separate Trials' 'interlocutory Crown Appeal' 'alleged Co Offender Evidence']

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 / Crown Appeal Pursuant to Ss 5 F(2) and 5 F(3 A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 From District Court Rulings Refusing Tendency and Coincidence Evidence and Allowing Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the exclusion of tendency and coincidence evidence eliminated or substantially weakened the prosecution case for the purposes of s 5F(3A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the Judge erred in excluding evidence of related events as tendency and coincidence evidence.' "Whether the Judge erred in allowing the respondent's application to separate the 22 counts in the indictment into separate trials."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge erred by conflating the two steps required for assessing tendency and coincidence evidence, by treating Mr McCarthy's evidence in isolation, and by wrongly concluding that alleged co-offender evidence deprived the related events of significance for tendency or coincidence purposes. The related events were capable of supporting an inference that the offences were committed by the same offenders and, when considered with DNA, circumstantial and association evidence, were likely to be assigned significant probative value. Because the exclusion substantially weakened the prosecution case, the ruling excluding tendency and coincidence evidence was set aside. The separate trial ruling...

Court Disposition

Crown appeal upheld; both District Court rulings of 11 March 2010 were set aside.

Orders

  • ["The ruling of 11 March 2010 refusing the Crown's application to adduce evidence of tendency and co-incidence in accordance with the notices of 15 October 2009 is set aside." "The ruling of 11 March 2010 allowing the respondent's application for separate trials is set aside."]