R v WQ [2016] NSWDC 385

R v WQ [2016] NSWDC 385

There was no sufficient common pattern of behaviour across the complainants to establish significant probative value for tendency evidence, and there existed a real risk of contamination making it unsafe to admit such evidence under s 97 and s 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties
Crown: Regina (Crown); Defendant: WQ
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Tendency Application Within Jury Trial
Outcome
Tendency application denied
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Separate Trials, Probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect, Contamination Risk
Criminal Law Evidence Tendency Evidence Separate Trials Probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect Contamination Risk

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Crown

WQ

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Tendency Application Within Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tendency evidence should be admitted under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether evidence from one complainant can be used as tendency evidence to prove charges relating to other complainants
  3. 3 Whether the probative value of the tendency evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect under s 101

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficient common pattern of behaviour across the complainants to establish significant probative value for tendency evidence, and there existed a real risk of contamination making it unsafe to admit such evidence under s 97 and s 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Tendency application denied

Orders

  • Tendency evidence not admitted for proof of accused's guilt.
  • No order for separate trials made; trial proceeded on all counts together.