RH v R [2014] NSWCCA 71

RH v R [2014] NSWCCA 71

The tendency evidence of Jane, Kay and Lisa had significant probative value and its probative value substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. The temporal gaps were explicable by the sequential placement of vulnerable girls in the appellant's care and their ages, the similarities in the circumstances of abuse were sufficient despite differences in precise acts, and no real risk of contamination or concoction was established. The appellant's guilty plea and admitted facts concerning Lisa were not so prejudicial as to require exclusion. On an independent review of the evidence, including the complainants' evidence, disclosure evidence, the 2003 consultation with Dr Rewais, the 2007...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'propensity Evidence' 'contamination or Concoction of Evidence' 'child Sexual Assault Offences' 'unreasonable Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Appeals'] ['tendency Evidence' 'propensity Evidence' 'contamination or Concoction of Evidence' 'child Sexual Assault Offences' 'unreasonable Verdict']

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 Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether tendency evidence of Lisa was improperly admitted to prove counts 1 to 6 relating to Jane.' 'Whether tendency evidence of Kay was improperly admitted to prove counts 1 to 6 relating to Jane.' 'Whether tendency evidence of Lisa was improperly admitted to prove count 7 relating to Kay, including whether there was a real risk of contamination or concoction.' 'Whether tendency evidence of Jane was improperly admitted to prove count 7 relating to Kay.' "Whether Kay's evidence of two earlier uncharged incidents had sufficient probative value to be relied upon as tendency evidence." 'Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 5 and count 7 were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tendency evidence of Jane, Kay and Lisa had significant probative value and its probative value substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. The temporal gaps were explicable by the sequential placement of vulnerable girls in the appellant's care and their ages, the similarities in the circumstances of abuse were sufficient despite differences in precise acts, and no real risk of contamination or concoction was established. The appellant's guilty plea and admitted facts concerning Lisa were not so prejudicial as to require exclusion. On an independent review of the evidence, including the complainants' evidence, disclosure evidence, the 2003 consultation with Dr Rewais, the 2007...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']