R v AA [2020] NSWDC 362

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v AA [2020] NSWDC 362 Hearing dates: 20 & 21 April 2020 Decision date: 23 April 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Norrish QC DCJ Decision: I admit evidence identified by the Crown in its 'Tendency Notice' as "Cross Admissible" as relevant to establish the two particular tendencies that have significant probative value. The evidence of "Uncharged Acts" are, in reality, not suitable for 'charging' and are not admissible as tendency evidence but are available as evidence of "context" and/or "relationship". The "Other Evidence", as described in the Crown's 'Notice', does not have significant probative value, if otherwise it ought not be admitted pursuant to s 101 Evidence Act 1995. Catchwords: Interlocutory orders – admissibility of tendency evidence Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 303 Ceissmann v R [2015] NSWCCA 74 DAO (2011) 81 NSWLR 568; [2011] NSWCCA 63 Demirok [1976] V.R. 244 DPP v RDT [2018] NSW CCA 293 DSJ v R (2012) 84 NSWLR 758; [2012] NSWCCA 9 Hughes v R (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 IMM v R (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 JG v R [2014] NSWCCA 138 Jones v R [2014] NSWCCA 280; (2014) 246 A Crim R 425 McPhillamy v R [2018] HCA 52; (2018) 92 ALJR 1045 Mol v R [2017] NSWCCA 76 Pfenning v R [1995] HCA 7; 182 CLR 461 R v Bauer [2018] HCA 40; (2018) 92 ALJR 1045 R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 R v Dent [2016] NSWSC 99 R v Shamouil (2006) 66 NSWLR 228; [2006] NSWCCA 112 R v Watkins [2005] NSWCCA 164; (2005) 153 A Crim R 434 Saoud v R (2014) 87 NSWLR 481; [2014] NSWCCA 136 Sokolowskyi [2014] NSW CCA 55, 239; (2014) 239 A Crim R 528 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) AA (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Terracini (DPP) Ms M Swift (Accused)