R. v. JACKSON [2001] NSWCCA 387

R. v. JACKSON [2001] NSWCCA 387

The District Court judge erred by not carrying out the statutory balancing exercise under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995, and thus the discretion miscarried; the appeal should be allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for proper determination.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Lloyd Jackson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Practice and Procedure, Separate Trials, Court's Discretion, Tendency and Coincidence Evidence
Criminal Law Practice and Procedure Separate Trials Court's Discretion Tendency and Coincidence Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Lloyd Jackson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court judge erred in ordering separate trials instead of a single indictment for offences against three complainants
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to carry out the exercise required by s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court judge erred by not carrying out the statutory balancing exercise under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995, and thus the discretion miscarried; the appeal should be allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for proper determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order for severance made by Puckeridge DCJ is set aside
  • The matter is remitted to the District Court to be determined according to law