Clegg v R [2017] NSWCCA 125

Clegg v R [2017] NSWCCA 125

The trial judge's ruling permitting rebuttal character evidence did not infringe any fundamental legal principle because the Evidence Act explicitly provides that the tendency rule does not apply to such evidence. The subsequent discontinuance of prosecution on related allegations by the DPP does not constitute miscarriage of justice where the allegations were not withdrawn and the trial judge had correctly applied statutory rules. Jury directions given were adequate in context, and the law does not require distinctive features for the admission of tendency evidence under s 97. Grounds 2, 3, 4 granted leave but dismissed on merits; leave refused on ground 5; ground 9 dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: John Marshall Clegg; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales – Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Sexual Offences, Character Evidence, Tendency Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Sexual Offences Character Evidence Tendency Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Marshall Clegg

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales – Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting or permitting rebuttal character evidence previously ruled inadmissible as tendency evidence
  2. 2 Whether the discontinuance of prosecution by the DPP created a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether jury directions regarding good character and expert evidence were inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's ruling permitting rebuttal character evidence did not infringe any fundamental legal principle because the Evidence Act explicitly provides that the tendency rule does not apply to such evidence. The subsequent discontinuance of prosecution on related allegations by the DPP does not constitute miscarriage of justice where the allegations were not withdrawn and the trial judge had correctly applied statutory rules. Jury directions given were adequate in context, and the law does not require distinctive features for the admission of tendency evidence under s 97. Grounds 2, 3, 4 granted leave but dismissed on merits; leave refused on ground 5; ground 9 dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal under s 5(1)(b) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) granted on grounds 2, 3 and 4.
  • Leave to appeal on ground 5 refused under Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules.