D v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Sydney [2013] NSWSC 60

D v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Sydney [2013] NSWSC 60

Although the magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for the s 101 balancing exercise, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction and leave should be granted, but the appeal failed because the evidence was capable of having significant probative value as tendency and coincidence evidence and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. The alleged offences involved two young female complainants of similar age, conduct of similar seriousness, and circumstances in which the plaintiff allegedly acted opportunistically on a sexual interest while alone with complainants over whom he had authority. It was open to conclude that the offences formed part of a series of offences...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court in Criminal Summary Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 53(3)(b) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw); Appeal Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['separate Hearing of Charges' 'interlocutory Orders' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['separate Hearing of Charges' 'interlocutory Orders' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect']

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

Appeal From Local Court in Criminal Summary Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 53(3)(b) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw); Appeal Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the refusal of the plaintiff's application for separate hearings was an interlocutory order appealable under s 53(3)(b) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted.' 'Whether the Local Court failed to give adequate reasons, particularly for the balancing exercise required by s 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether the complainants' evidence was admissible as tendency evidence under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether the complainants' evidence was admissible as coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the interests of justice required the two charges to be heard separately.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for the s 101 balancing exercise, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction and leave should be granted, but the appeal failed because the evidence was capable of having significant probative value as tendency and coincidence evidence and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. The alleged offences involved two young female complainants of similar age, conduct of similar seriousness, and circumstances in which the plaintiff allegedly acted opportunistically on a sexual interest while alone with complainants over whom he had authority. It was open to conclude that the offences formed part of a series of offences...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']