R v F [2002] NSWCCA 125

R v F [2002] NSWCCA 125

The Court held that the facts alleged by the complainants were substantially similar and the circumstances in which they occurred were sufficiently similar to establish admissibility as tendency and coincidence evidence under the Evidence Act 1995. The reasonable possibility of concoction was excluded except in the case of one complainant (JPMcF) for whom a separate trial was required. The interlocutory/pre-trial decision on joinder/severance was properly reviewable under s 5F, but there was no error in the admissibility ruling or in the directions for joined and separate trials.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory/pre Trial Issues
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted to respondent, but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Coincidence Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Joinder and Severance of Charges, Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Evidence Tendency Evidence Coincidence Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Joinder and Severance of Charges 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 4 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

F

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory/pre Trial Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of similar offences with other victims was admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence under the Evidence Act 1995;
  2. 2 Whether the possibility of concoction had been excluded except in one case;
  3. 3 Whether charges should be joined in one trial or severed into separate trials;

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the facts alleged by the complainants were substantially similar and the circumstances in which they occurred were sufficiently similar to establish admissibility as tendency and coincidence evidence under the Evidence Act 1995. The reasonable possibility of concoction was excluded except in the case of one complainant (JPMcF) for whom a separate trial was required. The interlocutory/pre-trial decision on joinder/severance was properly reviewable under s 5F, but there was no error in the admissibility ruling or in the directions for joined and separate trials.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted to respondent, but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Crown appeal dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal granted to respondent, but appeal dismissed.