Addo v R [2022] NSWCCA 141

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Addo v R [2022] NSWCCA 141 Hearing dates: 3 June 2022 Date of orders: 30 June 2022 Decision date: 30 June 2022 Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL Adamson J Bellew J Decision: (1) The time for filing of the notice of appeal is extended until 26 October 2021. (2) The appeal against conviction is allowed. (3) The convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant in the District Court are quashed. (4) The matter is remitted to the District Court arraignment list on 15 July 2022 at 9:30am. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Tendency and coincidence evidence – Where Appellant charged with multiple counts of sexual offending – Where Crown served co-incidence notice – Where evidence admitted – Where direction by the Trial Judge failed to identify the relevant path of reasoning – Where the direction had the effect of reversing the reasoning process – Where the direction given resembled a direction as to tendency reasoning – Where evidence was admitted in the absence of the jury being given any direction as to how that evidence could be used in reasoning towards a conclusion that relevant aspects of the complainant's evidence should be accepted CRIMINAL LAW – Juries – Where individual juror discharged – Where the trial judge rejected an application to discharge the entire jury – Where the jury's verdicts were returned a short time after the discharge of the juror – Risk of substantial miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – Juries – Where individual juror discharged – Where appellant adduced evidence that the discharged juror had the appearance of a "man of black African ancestry" – Where the appellant was described as a "dark-skinned Aboriginal man" – Where it was submitted that the discharged juror would have been supportive of the appellant on the grounds of race – Where it was submitted that the there was a consequent risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice in not discharging the whole jury – Submission firmly rejected – Submission entirely overlooked the direction given by the trial judge to the jury to act impartially Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Evidence Amendment Act 2007 (NSW) Jury Act 1977 (NSW) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) Cases Cited: A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R [2018] NSWCCA 174 BG v R [2012] NSWCCA 139; (2012) 221 A Crim R 215 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71 DSJ v The Queen (2012) 84 NSWLR 758; [2012] NSWCCA 9 Edwards v The Queen (2021) 95 ALJR 808; [2021] HCA 28 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 GBF v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 1037; [2020] HCA 40 Haile v R [2022] NSWCCA 71 Hofer v R (2021) 95 ALJR 937; [2021] HCA 36 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7 Phan v R [2018] NSWCCA 225 The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40 R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50 R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174 R v Hiba Cornell [2015] NSWCCA 258 R v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236 R v Roberts [2005] 1 Qd R 408; [2004] QCA 366 R v WRC (2002) 130 a Crim 89; [2002] NSWCCA 210 Saoud v R (2014) 87 NSWLR 481; [2014] NSWCCA 136 Versi v R [2013] NSWCCA 206 Texts Cited: ALRC Report 102: Uniform Evidence Law Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stephen Addo – Appellant Regina – Respondent Representation: Counsel: D Carroll and K Fallah – Appellant C Curtis – Respondent