Kautoga v R [2017] NSWCCA 107

Kautoga v R [2017] NSWCCA 107

The applicant did not establish error in the trial judge's refusal to order separate trials or severance. The trial judge correctly identified the relevant statutory provisions and authorities, considered the admissibility and permissible uses of tendency and coincidence evidence, weighed probative value against...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Interlocutory Judgment / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) Against Refusal of a Notice of Motion for Separate Trials and Severance of the Indictment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['severance of Indictment' 'separate Trials' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'interlocutory Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['severance of Indictment' 'separate Trials' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'interlocutory Appeal']

Source-derived case record

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 Interlocutory Judgment / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) Against Refusal of a Notice of Motion for Separate Trials and Severance of the Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to sever the indictment and order separate trials for counts other than counts 2 and 3.' 'Whether the offences formed, or were part of, a series of offences of the same or a similar character within s 29(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).' 'Whether the interests of justice required separate trials because of prejudice or embarrassment to the applicant in his defence.' 'Whether the risk of unfair prejudice from tendency and coincidence evidence admissible for some purposes but not others could be sufficiently ameliorated by jury directions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish error in the trial judge's refusal to order separate trials or severance. The trial judge correctly identified the relevant statutory provisions and authorities, considered the admissibility and permissible uses of tendency and coincidence evidence, weighed probative value against unfair prejudice, and was entitled to conclude that any risk of unfair prejudice could be sufficiently ameliorated by directions to the jury.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']