RG v R [2010] NSWCCA 173

RG v R [2010] NSWCCA 173

The evidence challenged on appeal was not admitted as tendency evidence but as context (relationship) evidence to place the complainant's account in context. Judicial directions were properly provided to the jury limiting its use. The requirements of ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 were not triggered. There was no error of law by the trial judge and the ground of appeal was not established.

Parties
Applicant: RG; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Aggravated Indecent Assault, Sexual Offences Against Person Under 16, Appeal Against Conviction, Context Evidence Vs Tendency 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RG

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to adequately distinguish between tendency and context evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge permitted tendency evidence to be led before the Jury otherwise than in accordance with ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence challenged on appeal was not admitted as tendency evidence but as context (relationship) evidence to place the complainant's account in context. Judicial directions were properly provided to the jury limiting its use. The requirements of ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 were not triggered. There was no error of law by the trial judge and the ground of appeal was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.