DJW v R [2015] NSWCCA 164

DJW v R [2015] NSWCCA 164

The primary judge was entitled to find that there was no real risk of concoction or contamination in relation to four of the complainants and that the tendency evidence had significant probative value, and this value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. The decision not to order further separate trials was open. Any risk of prejudice could be addressed by jury directions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'separate Trials' 'probative Value' 'prejudice' 'sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'separate Trials' 'probative Value' 'prejudice' 'sexual Offences']

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 / Ruling on Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in not ordering separate trials for all complainants' 'Whether there was error in assessment of the admissibility and prejudicial effect of tendency evidence under ss 97 and 101 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge was entitled to find that there was no real risk of concoction or contamination in relation to four of the complainants and that the tendency evidence had significant probative value, and this value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. The decision not to order further separate trials was open. Any risk of prejudice could be addressed by jury directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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