Regina v MM [2004] NSWCCA 364

Regina v MM [2004] NSWCCA 364

The trial judge erroneously found that the Probation and Parole officer's evidence was improperly obtained and thus inadmissible; further, the judge erred in holding the tendency evidence was simply irrelevant. The Court of Criminal Appeal vacated the rulings excluding the evidence, holding that such evidence could be relevant and that other admissibility criteria (apart from s 138 and tendency relevance) should be determined by the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Evidentiary Rulings Before Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'improperly Obtained Admissions' 'child Sexual Assault Charges']
['criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'improperly Obtained Admissions' 'child Sexual Assault Charges']

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 / Crown Appeal Against Evidentiary Rulings Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether admissions made by the respondent to a Probation and Parole officer were improperly obtained and thus inadmissible under s 138 of the Evidence Act.' 'Whether evidence of the respondent collecting, viewing child pornography and having sexual fantasies about children was inadmissible as tendency evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erroneously found that the Probation and Parole officer's evidence was improperly obtained and thus inadmissible; further, the judge erred in holding the tendency evidence was simply irrelevant. The Court of Criminal Appeal vacated the rulings excluding the evidence, holding that such evidence could be relevant and that other admissibility criteria (apart from s 138 and tendency relevance) should be determined by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Orders made by Judge Maguire on 20 May 2004 rejecting evidence be vacated']