Salgado v R [2022] NSWCCA 58

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Salgado v R [2022] NSWCCA 58 Hearing dates: 20 August 2021 Date of orders: 18 March 2022 Decision date: 18 March 2022 Before: Brereton JA at [1]; Campbell J at [2]; Hamill J at [7] Decision: (1) To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal against the convictions on counts 1, 4 and 5. (2) Allow the appeal. (3) Quash the convictions in relation to counts 1, 4 and 5. (4) Confirm the convictions on counts 2, 3 and 6. (5) Order a re-trial on counts 1, 4 and 5. (6) Quash the aggregate sentence imposed on 21 February 2020. (7) Remit the matter to the District Court for retrial in relation to counts 1, 4 and 5 and resentence of Counts 2, 3 and 6 upon finalisation of those proceedings. I direct that the matter be placed in the Arraignments List at Sydney District Court on 25 March 2022 at 9.30am. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – admissibility – multiple counts of drug supply – where some offences admitted and others denied – cross-admissibility of evidence – where evidence not relied on as tendency evidence – whether admissible on any other basis – whether relevant to rebut accused person's defence – whether relationship evidence – where co-offender in custody at the time of subsequent offending – risk of tendency reasoning – danger of unfair prejudice – whether directions able to cure risk of impermissible reasoning CRIMINAL LAW – adequacy of directions – whether anti-tendency direction required – risk of impermissible reasoning high – where direction not to reason "automatically" that accused guilty of other offences – whether Prosecutor's address increased the risk of tendency reasoning Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) ss 5(1), 6(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 21(2)(a), 29(1)(c) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 25(1)-(2), 29 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 137 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15 Cases Cited: BRC v R [2020] NSWCCA 176; (2020) 284 A Crim R 124 De Jesus v The Queen [1986] HCA 65; (1986) 61 ALJR 1 De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57; [2019] HCA 48 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106; [1998] HCA 21 Hamilton (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 80 Hamilton (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] HCA 33; (2021) 95 ALJR 894 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590; [1989] HCA 50 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; [1998] HCA 50 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14, JWM v R [2014] NSWCCA 248; (2014) 245 A Crim R 538 KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11 Mac v R [2014] NSWCCA 24 Makin v The Attorney General for NSW [1894] AC 57 Markby v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 108; [1978] HCA 29 McPhillamy v The Queen [2018] HCA 52; (2018) 92 ALJR 1045 Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580; [1982] HCA 75, Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7 Qualtieri v R [2006] NSWCCA 95; (2006) 171 A Crim R 463 R v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40 R v Falzon (2018) 264 CLR 361; [2018] HCA 29 R v Matthews; R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 259 R v Ngatikaura [2006] NSWCCA 161; (2006) 161 A Crim R 329 R v Quach [2002] NSWCCA 519; (2002) 137 A Crim R 345 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528; [1984] HCA 5 Vaoalii Toalepai v R [2009] NSWCCA 270 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Benjamin Salgado (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G Bashir SC with C O'Neill (Appellant) M Kumar (Respondent)