Roach v The Queen [2011] HCA 12

Roach v The Queen [2011] HCA 12

The rule in Pfennig v The Queen does not apply to the admissibility of evidence under s 132B or to the discretion under s 130; admissibility is determined by relevance, subject to exclusion for unfairness under s 130, but s 130 does not incorporate the Pfennig rule. Directions to the jury on the use and purpose of relationship evidence were sufficient and there was no requirement for a beyond reasonable doubt instruction regarding that evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Kerry Raymond Roach; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Propensity Evidence, Admissibility, Relationship Evidence, Domestic Violence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Evidence Propensity Evidence Admissibility Relationship Evidence Domestic Violence 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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerry Raymond Roach

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Q) requires application of Pfennig v The Queen for admissibility of relationship evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was required by s 130 or common law to exclude the evidence as unfair applying the rule in Pfennig
  3. 3 Whether a jury direction was required to the effect that prior acts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The rule in Pfennig v The Queen does not apply to the admissibility of evidence under s 132B or to the discretion under s 130; admissibility is determined by relevance, subject to exclusion for unfairness under s 130, but s 130 does not incorporate the Pfennig rule. Directions to the jury on the use and purpose of relationship evidence were sufficient and there was no requirement for a beyond reasonable doubt instruction regarding that evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed