R v Jennings [2010] NSWCCA 193

R v Jennings [2010] NSWCCA 193

The trial Judge erred in revoking the earlier ruling permitting the use of the four complainants' evidence as tendency and coincidence evidence. There had been no significant change in the evidence during the trial; the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect; and the exclusion of the evidence would have substantially weakened the prosecution case. The Judge misapplied the concept of 'prejudicial effect' and incorrectly withdrew the tendency/coincidence use.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling in Criminal Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; ruling of 30 July 2010 vacated
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'appeal Under S 5 F(3 A) Criminal Appeal Act 1912']
['criminal Law'] ['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'appeal Under S 5 F(3 A) Criminal Appeal Act 1912']

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 / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling in Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the ruling revoking the Crown's ability to rely on evidence of three complainants as tendency and coincidence evidence was erroneous" "Whether the ruling was a 'ruling on the admissibility of evidence' under s 5F(3A) Criminal Appeal Act 1912" 'Whether the ruling would substantially weaken the prosecution case' 'Whether the probative value of tendency/coincidence evidence substantially outweighed prejudicial effect under s 101']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial Judge erred in revoking the earlier ruling permitting the use of the four complainants' evidence as tendency and coincidence evidence. There had been no significant change in the evidence during the trial; the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect; and the exclusion of the evidence would have substantially weakened the prosecution case. The Judge misapplied the concept of 'prejudicial effect' and incorrectly withdrew the tendency/coincidence use.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; ruling of 30 July 2010 vacated

Orders

  • ['Ruling made by his Honour, Judge Toner QC on 30 July 2010 is vacated']