TL v R [2020] NSWCCA 265

TL v R [2020] NSWCCA 265

The evidence of scalds/burns, bruising, and the child’s representations was admissible as tendency evidence with significant probative value, especially as the applicant was one of only three possible perpetrators. The trial judge’s directions to the jury were appropriate and sufficient. The sentence, although severe, appropriately reflected the objective seriousness of the offending, the circumstances, the applicant’s conduct, and statutory standards. No substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. Both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'conviction Appeal' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'sentencing' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law'] ['murder' 'conviction Appeal' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'sentencing' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifest Excess']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence' 'Whether the trial judge erred in admitting tendency evidence (scalds/burns, bruise, tendency to harm)' 'Whether the trial judge erred in not giving a direction under s 165 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) about hearsay evidence' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive' 'Whether the trial miscarried due to wrongful admission/use of evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of scalds/burns, bruising, and the child’s representations was admissible as tendency evidence with significant probative value, especially as the applicant was one of only three possible perpetrators. The trial judge’s directions to the jury were appropriate and sufficient. The sentence, although severe, appropriately reflected the objective seriousness of the offending, the circumstances, the applicant’s conduct, and statutory standards. No substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. Both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to extend time for the application for leave to appeal against conviction.' 'Leave to appeal against conviction is granted.' 'Appeal against conviction is dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence is dismissed.']