BJS v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 239

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: BJS v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 239 Hearing dates: 19 April 2011, 4 May 2011 Decision date: 03 November 2011 Before: Basten JA at [1]; R S Hulme J at [39]; Hall J at [50] Decision: 1. Leave to appeal granted 2. Appeal dismissed Catchwords: APPEAL - criminal - interlocutory - refusal to grant separate trials in respect of separate complainants - whether evidence in respect of one charge admissible in respect of others - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F(3)

EVIDENCE - criminal proceedings - admissibility of tendency evidence - admissibility of co-incidence evidence - risk of concoction or contamination - evidence of sexual activities by teacher and priest at boarding school involving young boys under his authority - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97 and 98

PROCEDURE - criminal proceedings - joinder of offences which are part of a series of offences of a similar character - application for separate trials in respect of separate complainants - whether evidence on one charge admissible on other charges - whether prosecution had negated risk of concoction or contamination - Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 21 and 29 Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Amendment) Act 1989 Crimes (Child Assault) Amendment Act 1985 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: Adam v R (2001) 207 CLR 96 BP v R; R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 303 BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275 CGL v DPP (2010) 24 VR 486 Dao v R [2011] NSWCCA 63 De Jesus v The Queen [1986] HCA 65; 61 ALJR 1 FB v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 217 HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Kilbourne v R [1973] AC 729 KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29 Norvenska v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCCA 158 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580 Pfennig v The Queen [1995] HCA 7; 182 CLR 461 Phillips v R (2006) 225 CLR 303 PNJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2010] VSCA 88 R v Ananthanarayanan (1994) 98 Cr App R 1 R v Andrews [2003] NSWCCA 7 R v Boardman [1975] AC 421 R v Colby [1999] NSWCCA 261 R v Dawson-Ryan (2009) 104 SASR 571 R v Ellis (2003) 58 NSWLR 700 R v F [2002] NSWCCA 125; 129 A Crim R 126 R v Folbigg (2005) 152 A Crim R 35 R v Ford (2009) 201 A Crim R 451 R v Glennon (No 2) (2001) 7 VR 631 R v Kray [1970] 1 QB 125 R v Le [2000] NSWCCA 49 R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457 R v OGD (No 2) (2000) 50 NSWLR 433 R v Powch (1988) 14 NSWLR 136; 34 A Crim R 360 R v PWD (2010) 205 A Crim R 75 R v Zhang (2005) 158 A Crim R 504 Saunders v R (1994) 72 A Crim R 347 Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528 Texts Cited: Cross on Evidence (3rd Aust ed, 1986) J Anderson, N Williams SC and L Clegg, The New Law of Evidence (2nd ed, 2009) Category: Principal judgment Parties: BJS REGINA Representation: C: C Maxwell QC/N Noman A: P Boulten SC C: S Kavanagh A: Greg Walsh & Co File Number(s): 2009/192967 Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 9101 Date of Decision: 2011-02-21 00:00:00 Before: Finnane DCJ File Number(s): 2009/192967