Saoud v R [2014] NSWCCA 136

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Saoud v R [2014] NSWCCA 136 Hearing dates: 5 May 2014 Decision date: 25 July 2014 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Fullerton J at [63]; R A Hulme J at [64] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal against convictions entered on 15 March 2012. (2) Dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - appeal - general principles - interference with discretion of court below - whether decision involved a discretionary exercise of power

COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM - intermediate appellate courts - interpretation of uniform legislation -provisions with respect to admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence - different interpretations alleged as to meaning of "significant probative value" - Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121 held "significant probative value" requires a higher degree of similarities to that required by this Court - whether difference exists - whether difference needs to be addressed and reconciled - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 98 - Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 97, 98

EVIDENCE - admissibility - tendency and coincidence evidence - similar circumstances alleged in separate and independent complaints against applicant - whether evidence had "significant probative value" - whether trial judge failed to identify issues at trial to determine probative value - degree of specificity of conduct in determining probative value of tendency or coincidence evidence - relevance of similarities in determining probative value of tendency evidence - whether probative value of evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 98, 101(2) Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 5F Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 98, 101 Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 303 CGL v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2010] VSCA 26 DAO v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 63; 81 NSWLR 568 GBF v The Queen [2010] VSCA 135 Hoch v The Queen [1988] HCA 50; 165 CLR 292 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 Ibrahim v Pham [2007] NSWCA 215 KRI v The Queen [2011] VSCA 127; 207 A Crim R 552 Lock (1997) A Crim R 356 O'Keefe v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 121 R v Fletcher [2005] NSWCCA 338; 156 A Crim R 308 R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306; 201 A Crim R 451 R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457 R v PWD [2010] NSWCCA 209; 205 A Crim R 75 R v Zhang [2005] NSWCCA 437; 196 FLR 152; 227 ALR 311; 158 A Crim R 504 Sokolowskyj v R [2014] NSWCCA 55 Stubley v State of Western Australia [2011] HCA 7; 242 CLR 374 Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dany Anis Saoud (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr M Thangaraj SC/Mr S Pararajasinghan (Appellant) Mr R Herps (Respondent)