The Queen v Dennis Bauer (a pseudonym)Citation:[2018] HCA 40Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:12 Sep 2018Case Number:M1/2018Read more

The Queen v Dennis Bauer (a pseudonym)Citation:[2018] HCA 40Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:12 Sep 2018Case Number:M1/2018Read more

The court held that the tendency evidence of the complainant and third party was admissible, had significant probative value, and was cross-admissible in proof of each charge. The risk of contamination, concoction or collusion did not substantially reduce the probative value. The tendency notice was not defective and severance of Charge 2 was not required. The previously recorded evidence and hearsay representations were admissible as their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Admissibility, Severance, Hearsay, Recorded Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Evidence Law Tendency Evidence Admissibility Severance Hearsay Recorded Evidence Jury Directions

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of tendency evidence in sexual offence trials
  2. 2 Cross-admissibility of charged and uncharged acts as tendency evidence
  3. 3 Risk of contamination, concoction or collusion affecting probative value

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tendency evidence of the complainant and third party was admissible, had significant probative value, and was cross-admissible in proof of each charge. The risk of contamination, concoction or collusion did not substantially reduce the probative value. The tendency notice was not defective and severance of Charge 2 was not required. The previously recorded evidence and hearsay representations were admissible as their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Tendency evidence admitted
  • Previously recorded evidence admitted