Jones v R [2014] NSWCCA 280

Jones v R [2014] NSWCCA 280

The appeal failed because the primary judge's finding that there was no evidence of concoction or contamination was well open. None of the complainants was confronted with an allegation of concoction or contamination; no opportunity or motive to concoct was put; JA's complaint was spontaneous; DA's and DMA's responses followed open-ended questions; and there was no evidence of prior discussions, later tailoring, or discussions with W suggesting concoction or contamination. The fourth issue concerning the notices was not pursued because counsel before the primary judge had abandoned reliance on it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application Under S. 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against Interlocutory District Court Orders Admitting Tendency Evidence and Refusing Separate Trials / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused on the fourth issue; leave granted on the first, second and third issues; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'sexual Assault Counts Involving Multiple Complainants' 'concoction or Contamination of Evidence' 'separate Trials' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['tendency Evidence' 'sexual Assault Counts Involving Multiple Complainants' 'concoction or Contamination of Evidence' 'separate Trials' '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

Criminal Appeal Application Under S. 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against Interlocutory District Court Orders Admitting Tendency Evidence and Refusing Separate Trials / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that there was no evidence of concoction or contamination.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in failing to apply Hoch v The Queen, BP v R; R v BP and FB v R; R v FB.' 'Whether R v Shamouil prohibited consideration of possible concoction or contamination when determining the probative value of tendency evidence.' 'Whether leave should be granted on the issue concerning the validity and sufficiency of the tendency notices.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge's finding that there was no evidence of concoction or contamination was well open. None of the complainants was confronted with an allegation of concoction or contamination; no opportunity or motive to concoct was put; JA's complaint was spontaneous; DA's and DMA's responses followed open-ended questions; and there was no evidence of prior discussions, later tailoring, or discussions with W suggesting concoction or contamination. The fourth issue concerning the notices was not pursued because counsel before the primary judge had abandoned reliance on it.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused on the fourth issue; leave granted on the first, second and third issues; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal on the fourth issue is refused.' 'Leave to appeal on each of the first, second and third issues is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']