Taylor v R [2020] NSWCCA 355

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Taylor v R [2020] NSWCCA 355 Hearing dates: 11 November 2020 Date of orders: 22 December 2020 Decision date: 22 December 2020 Before: Bell P at [1]; Walton J at [134]; Beech-Jones J at [139] Decision: (1) The applicant be granted leave to appeal against his conviction on count 9 of the indictment presented against him on 4 June 2019, being an offence under s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, that the appeal be allowed, the conviction set aside and an acquittal be entered. (2) The applicant be otherwise granted leave to appeal against his convictions but the appeal be dismissed. (3) That the aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant on 5 November 2019 be set aside, and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment for 14 months commencing 5 October 2019 and expiring on 4 December 2020, with a non-parole period of 10 months. (4) Pursuant to s 53A(2)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the Court indicates to the offender that an aggregate sentence is being imposed and the sentences that would have been imposed for each offence that make up the aggregate sentence are: (i) Count 4 – 12 months imprisonment; (ii) Count 11 – 4 months imprisonment; (iii) Count 12 – 4 months imprisonment. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Challenge to conviction – where Crown case in relation to one count required the applicant to have scaled the external wall or descended on a fourth floor balcony of a five-storey apartment building – where no apparent means of applicant having accessed the balcony externally – whether conviction on this count unreasonable. CRIMINAL LAW – tendency evidence – where evidence of tendency related to conduct almost ten years prior to conduct the subject of the charges – whether tendency evidence of significant probative value – review of principles relating to tendency evidence. CRIMINAL LAW – where applicant on parole at time of hearing of appeal – where challenge to convictions in respect of multiple counts succeeds – whether new trial should be ordered. EVIDENCE – tendency evidence – where evidence of tendency related to conduct almost ten years prior to conduct the subject of the charges – whether tendency evidence of significant probative value – review of principles relating to tendency evidence. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 53A(2)(c) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 105A, 111(2), 115A Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 38, 97, 97A, 101(2) Evidence Amendment (Tendency and Coincidence) Act 2020 (NSW) Cases Cited: AC v R [2016] NSWCCA 21 Anthony v Morton [2018] NSWSC 1884 Aravena v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 258; [2015] NSWCCA 288 Armstrong v R [2017] NSWCCA 323 BP v R; R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 303 DAO v The Queen (2011) 81 NSWLR 568; [2011] NSWCCA 63 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v RDT [2018] NSWCCA 293 DSJ v The Queen; NS v The Queen (2012) 84 NSWLR 758; [2012] NSWCCA 9 El-Haddad v R (2015) 88 NSWLR 93; [2015] NSWCCA 10 Elomar v R; Hasan v R; Cheikho v R; Cheikho v R; Jamal v R (2014) 300 FLR 323; [2014] NSWCCA 303 Gardiner v R (2006) 162 A Crim R 233; [2006] NSWCCA 190 Hughes v R (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 Ibrahim v Pham [2007] NSWCA 215 IMM v R (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 KJR v R (2007) 173 A Crim R 226; [2007] NSWCCA 165 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 McPhillamy v R (2018) 92 ALJR 1045; [2018] HCA 52 O'Keefe v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 121 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29 Pell v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 394; [2020] HCA 12 Qualiteri v R (2006) 171 A Crim R 463; [2006] NSWCCA 95 R v Allen [2020] NSWCCA 173 R v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40 R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 R v Cakovski (2004) 149 A Crim R 21; [2004] NSWCCA 280 R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52 R v Fletcher (2005) 156 A Crim R 308; [2005] NSWCCA 338 R v Ford (2009) 201 A Crim R 451; [2009] NSWCCA 306 R v GAC (2007) 178 A Crim R 408; [2007] NSWCCA 315 R v Joiner (2002) 133 A Crim R 90; [2002] NSWCCA 354 R v Knight [2015] NSWCCA 34 R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457 R v Milton [2004] NSWCCA 195 R v MM [2014] NSWCCA 144 R v PWD (2010) 205 A Crim R 75; [2010] NSWCCA 209 R v SK [2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Smith (2008) 190 A Crim R 8; [2008] NSWCCA 247 R v Suteski (2002) 56 NSWLR 182; [2002] NSWCCA 509 R v Watkins (2005) 153 A Crim R 434; [2005] NSWCCA 164 RH v R (2014) 241 A Crim R 1; [2014] NSWCCA 71 RHB v The Queen [2011] VSCA 295 Saoud v R (2014) 87 NSWLR 481; [2014] NSWCCA 136 Semaan v R (2013) 39 VR 503; [2013] VSCA 13 Sokolowskyj v R [2014] NSWCCA 55 SSN v R [2012] NSWCCA 163 Townsend v Townsend [2001] NSWCA 136 Velkoski v The Queen (2014) 45 VR 680; [2014] VSCA 121 White v Johnston (2015) 87 NSWLR 779; [2015] NSWCA 18 Zaknic Pty Ltd v Svelte Corporation Pty Ltd (1995) 61 FCR 171; (1995) 140 ALR 701 Texts Cited: R Weinstein, J Anderson, J Marychurch, J Roy, Uniform Evidence Law in Australia (3rd ed, 2020) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Edward Charles Taylor (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: