McPhillamy v R [2017] NSWCCA 130

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: McPhillamy v R [2017] NSWCCA 130 Hearing dates: 7 October 2016; further written submissions 24 and 25 October 2016 Decision date: 14 June 2017 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Harrison J at [123]; RA Hulme J at [123] Decision: 1. Extend time as may be required. 2. Grant leave to appeal against conviction. 3. Dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – charges of acts of indecency committed on young teenage boy – where trial judge does not give reasons for admitting tendency evidence – whether miscarriage of justice where no procedural difficulty resulting from absence of reasons and appellate court able to determine whether evidence wrongly admitted – evidence properly admitted – no substantial miscarriage of justice

EVIDENCE – admissibility – tendency evidence – charges of acts of indecency committed on young teenage boy – where evidence of two occasions 10 years earlier relied on to prove accused had tendency to be sexually interested in early teenage boys and to act on that interest – whether evidence had significant probative value – whether probative value of evidence substantially outweighed prejudicial effect Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 5F(3A), 6(1) Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 25A(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 95, 97(1), 101(2) Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8 Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 92; [2012] HCA 14 Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469; [2012] HCA 59 BG v R [2012] NSWCCA 139; (2012) 221 A Crim R 215 BP v R; R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 303 Campbell v R [2014] NSWCCA 175; (2014) 312 ALR 129 City of Sydney Council v Satara [2007] NSWCA 148 DAO v R (2011) 81 NSWLR 568; [2011] NSWCCA 63 Director of Public Prosecutions v Boardman [1975] AC 421 Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4 El-Haddad v R (2014) 88 NSWLR 93; [2015] NSWCCA 10 Elomar v R [2014] NSWCCA 303; (2014) 316 ALR 206 Evans v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 521; [2007] HCA 59 Evans v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 277; (2006) 164 A Crim R 489 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 Gardiner v R [2006] NSWCCA 190; (2006) 162 A Crim R 233 HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330 Hughes v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 201 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 Jacara Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd (2000) 106 FCR 51; [2000] FCA 1886 Le v R [2012] NSWCCA 202 Lindsay v The Queen (2015) 255 CLR 272; [2015] HCA 16 Madubuko v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 135; (2011) 210 A Crim R 249 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2 Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29 Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 PWD v R [2010] NSWCCA 209; (2010) 205 A Crim R 75 R v Fletcher [2005] NSWCCA 338; (2005) 156 A Crim R 308 R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306; (2010) 201 A Crim R 451 R v McCullagh (No 3) [2007] VSCA 293; (2007) 179 A Crim R 334 Ramsay v Aberfoyle Manufacturing (Australia) Pty Ltd (1935) 54 CLR 230 RH v R [2014] NSWCCA 71; (2014) 241 A Crim R 1 Saoud v R [2014] NSWCCA 136 Sokolowskyj [2014] NSWCCA 55; (2014) 239 A Crim R 528 Thompson v The King [1912] AC 221 Velkoski v R (2014) 45 VR 680; [2014] VSCA 121 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 Webb v The Queen (1994) 13 WAR 257 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard McPhillamy (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Buchen (Appellant) B Baker (Respondent)