R v DAW (No. 2) [2021] NSWDC 6

R v DAW (No. 2) [2021] NSWDC 6

There is no unfairness to the accused in permitting Count 6 to remain for the jury's consideration despite Count 5 being withdrawn, and tendency evidence including uncharged conduct is admissible as it meets the probative value threshold under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties
Prosecution: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Mr DAW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Procedural Applications
Outcome
No case submission on Count 6 rejected; tendency evidence admissible.
Legal Topics
Historical Child Sexual Offences, Procedure, No Case Submission, Tendency Evidence
Criminal Law Historical Child Sexual Offences Procedure No Case Submission Tendency 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecution

Mr DAW

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Ruling on Procedural Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Count 6 should remain for the jury following the acceptance to acquit on Count 5, which was alternative to Count 6.
  2. 2 Whether tendency evidence comprising charged and uncharged conduct should be admitted pursuant to s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Ratio Decidendi

There is no unfairness to the accused in permitting Count 6 to remain for the jury's consideration despite Count 5 being withdrawn, and tendency evidence including uncharged conduct is admissible as it meets the probative value threshold under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

No case submission on Count 6 rejected; tendency evidence admissible.

Orders

  • Count 6 remains for jury consideration.
  • Tendency evidence as identified in the Crown notice is admissible.