Greenaway v R [2021] NSWCCA 253

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Greenaway v R [2021] NSWCCA 253 Hearing dates: 30 August 2021 Date of orders: 1 November 2021 Decision date: 01 November 2021 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Walton J at [90]; Wilson J at [135] Decision: (1) Grant leave to the applicant to appeal against his convictions and sentence. (2) Dismiss the appeals. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – tendency evidence – criminal proceedings – applicant charged with historical sexual offences against six complainants – applicant an officer in NSW juvenile justice system and complainants young female inmates – whether uncharged sexual acts admissible as tendency evidence – ss 97, 101 Evidence Act – correctness standard of review – whether significant probative value substantially outweighed prejudicial effect – standard of proof to be applied to uncharged acts in multi-complainant case – sufficient similarities for cross-admissibility of tendency evidence in relation to all counts EVIDENCE – exclusion of evidence – advance ruling made excluding evidence of psychologist witness under s 192A Evidence Act – evidence related to different inmates and different officer to those in this matter – evidence not relevant under s 55 Evidence Act – evidence properly excluded SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – severity – whether aggregate sentence of imprisonment excessive – need for House v The King error – whether sentencing judge sentenced in accordance with sentencing practices at time and considered delay – overall no indication that sentence is manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59, 61, 63, 76, 79 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 142 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 97, 100, 101, 192A Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15 Cases Cited: ABR (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 33 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Clarke v R [2021] NSWCCA 236 Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCCA 201 Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4 Hamilton v R [2020] NSWCCA 80 Henderson v R [2016] NSWCCA 8 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 Kirby v R [2021] NSWCCA 162 Long (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 212 Magnuson v R [2013] NSWCCA 50 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 McPhillamy v The Queen [2018] HCA 52; 92 ALJR 1045 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Papakosmas v R (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Qualtieri v R [2006] NSWCCA 95; (2006) 171 A Crim R 463 R v AC [2018] NSWCCA 130 R v Cattell [2019] NSWCCA 297 R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306; (2009) 201 A Crim R 451 R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368 R v Shore (1992) 66 A Crim R 37 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 Rogerson v The Queen, McNamara v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 160 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56 The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40 Vagg v R [2020] NSWCCA 134 Vuni v R [2006] NSWCCA 171 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Noel Greenaway (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: P Skinner / M Voleynik (Applicant) B Hatfield (Respondent)