R v Williams (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 836

R v Williams (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 836

The proposed prosecution tendency evidence meets the statutory tests for admissibility: it is relevant, establishes a tendency, has significant probative value (which substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect), and is cross-admissible for the counts involving all complainants. Differences in relationships and the temporal gap do not undermine the probative value. Proper judicial directions can address any risk of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the evidence is admissible and the application for separate trials is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application/rulings on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence and Application for Separate Trials
Outcome
Proposed prosecution tendency evidence admitted; application for separate trials refused
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Tendency Evidence' 'child Sexual Assault' 'joint Trials' 'separate Trial Application']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Tendency Evidence' 'child Sexual Assault' 'joint Trials' 'separate Trial Application']

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 / Pre Trial Application/rulings on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence and Application for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed prosecution tendency evidence is admissible at trial' 'Whether defence application for separate trials for each complainant should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed prosecution tendency evidence meets the statutory tests for admissibility: it is relevant, establishes a tendency, has significant probative value (which substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect), and is cross-admissible for the counts involving all complainants. Differences in relationships and the temporal gap do not undermine the probative value. Proper judicial directions can address any risk of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the evidence is admissible and the application for separate trials is refused.

Court Disposition

Proposed prosecution tendency evidence admitted; application for separate trials refused

Orders

  • ['The proposed prosecution tendency evidence can be admitted at trial.' 'The defence application for separate trials for each complainant is refused.' 'Jury to be directed on the use of cross-admissible and uncharged acts tendency evidence as outlined in the ruling.']