R v DLW [2019] NSWDC 305

R v DLW [2019] NSWDC 305

The temporal gap of six to eight years between the alleged offences is sufficient to deprive cross-complainant tendency evidence of significant probative value. Individual complainant evidence is admissible as tendency evidence for counts concerning that complainant, but cross-admissibility is not established due to the absence of manifestations of the asserted tendency in the intervening period and the change in maturity of the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence
Outcome
Admissibility of tendency evidence partly allowed and partly refused; order for separate trials
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'temporal Gap' 'admissibility' 'probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'temporal Gap' 'admissibility' 'probative Value']

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 / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from one complainant is admissible as tendency evidence in relation to counts involving another complainant' 'Whether the temporal gap between alleged events affects significant probative value of tendency evidence' 'Whether evidence of individual complainants is admissible as tendency evidence in relation to their own counts']

Ratio Decidendi

The temporal gap of six to eight years between the alleged offences is sufficient to deprive cross-complainant tendency evidence of significant probative value. Individual complainant evidence is admissible as tendency evidence for counts concerning that complainant, but cross-admissibility is not established due to the absence of manifestations of the asserted tendency in the intervening period and the change in maturity of the accused.

Court Disposition

Admissibility of tendency evidence partly allowed and partly refused; order for separate trials

Orders

  • ['I decline to admit the evidence of LM as tendency evidence with respect to counts 4, 5 and 6.' 'I decline to admit the evidence of BW as tendency evidence with respect to counts 1, 2 and 3.' 'I admit the evidence of LM as tendency evidence in relation to counts 1, 2 and 3.' 'I admit the evidence of BW as tendency...