Crawford v R [2023] NSWCCA 8

Crawford v R [2023] NSWCCA 8

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was, in substance, a challenge to an interlocutory evidentiary ruling, a context in which restraint is required; the trial judge made no error in finding the anticipated tendency evidence cross-admissible, of very high probative value, and not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice; any risk of unfairness could be ameliorated by jury directions; the applicant was not prejudiced or embarrassed in his defence by a joint trial; and the late application risked disrupting the allocated trial date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) Against Refusal of an Application for Separate Trials
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'child Sexual Offences' 'separate Trials' 'unfair Prejudice' 'interlocutory Appeals' 'sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['tendency Evidence' 'child Sexual Offences' 'separate Trials' 'unfair Prejudice' 'interlocutory Appeals' 'sexual Offences']

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 for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) Against Refusal of an Application for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the interlocutory refusal to order separate trials.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the evidence on the church counts and netball counts was cross-admissible as tendency evidence.' 'Whether the probative value of the tendency evidence outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to the applicant under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether separate trials were necessary under s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) to avoid prejudice or embarrassment to the applicant in his defence.' 'Whether it was appropriate on the leave application to address the construction and effect of s 97A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was, in substance, a challenge to an interlocutory evidentiary ruling, a context in which restraint is required; the trial judge made no error in finding the anticipated tendency evidence cross-admissible, of very high probative value, and not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice; any risk of unfairness could be ameliorated by jury directions; the applicant was not prejudiced or embarrassed in his defence by a joint trial; and the late application risked disrupting the allocated trial date.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal.']