Regina v Folli [2000] NSWCCA 460

Regina v Folli [2000] NSWCCA 460

Leave was refused because Sorby DCJ did not err in principle or act with manifest unreasonableness in concluding that the risk of miscarriage or unfairness did not warrant separate trials at that stage. Some evidence of one complainant was likely to be admissible and relevant to charges involving the other complainant, collusion or concoction had not been shown to be a real possibility, and evidentiary or discretionary questions could be dealt with by the trial judge in the context of the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Judgment / Court of Criminal Appeal Application From District Court Refusal of Applications for Separate Trials
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Appeal' 'separate Trials' 'indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'tendency Evidence' 'collusion or Concoction' 'prejudice to Accused']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['interlocutory Appeal' 'separate Trials' 'indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'tendency Evidence' 'collusion or Concoction' 'prejudice to Accused']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Judgment / Court of Criminal Appeal Application From District Court Refusal of Applications for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the interlocutory refusal to order separate trials for counts relating to each complainant.' 'Whether a joint trial would create unfair prejudice because the jury might wrongly use evidence concerning one complainant in relation to the other complainant.' 'Whether the possibility of collusion or concoction between the complainants warranted separate trials.' 'Whether Sorby DCJ erred in principle or reached a manifestly unreasonable conclusion in refusing separate trials.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because Sorby DCJ did not err in principle or act with manifest unreasonableness in concluding that the risk of miscarriage or unfairness did not warrant separate trials at that stage. Some evidence of one complainant was likely to be admissible and relevant to charges involving the other complainant, collusion or concoction had not been shown to be a real possibility, and evidentiary or discretionary questions could be dealt with by the trial judge in the context of the trial.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal dismissed.']