R. v. M. M. [2000] NSWCCA 78

R. v. M. M. [2000] NSWCCA 78

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's directions on relationship and tendency evidence were defective. The evidence was treated both as contextual relationship evidence and, if the jury thought appropriate, as showing guilty passion or sexual interest amounting to propensity. In those circumstances the judge was required to identify with care the evidence relied on for that purpose and to direct the jury that, unless and except to the extent that the other incidents were proved beyond reasonable doubt, they could not use them as establishing the appellant's propensity and as a step in the chain of proof of the charged offences. The judge did not do so. The motive-to-lie ground...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'motive to Lie' 'relationship Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'discharge of Jury']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['sexual Assault' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'motive to Lie' 'relationship Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'discharge of Jury']

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 Against Conviction and Sentence / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial miscarried because the complainant introduced the question of why he would lie and because of the trial judge's directions about motive to lie." 'Whether evidence of other sexual acts between the complainant and the appellant was admissible and whether the jury were properly directed about its use as relationship evidence or tendency evidence.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury after the complainant referred to other charges in Queensland.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's directions on relationship and tendency evidence were defective. The evidence was treated both as contextual relationship evidence and, if the jury thought appropriate, as showing guilty passion or sexual interest amounting to propensity. In those circumstances the judge was required to identify with care the evidence relied on for that purpose and to direct the jury that, unless and except to the extent that the other incidents were proved beyond reasonable doubt, they could not use them as establishing the appellant's propensity and as a step in the chain of proof of the charged offences. The judge did not do so. The motive-to-lie ground...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['ORDER that the Appeal be allowed.' 'ORDER that the convictions and sentences be quashed.' 'ORDER that there be a new trial.']