R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1782

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1782 Hearing dates: 5 December 20174 and 7 December 2017 (Written submissions) Decision date: 18 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: The coincidence evidence is admissible. The tendency evidence is inadmissible. The application for severance of counts 2 and 3 is refused. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility – criminal proceedings –tendency evidence – coincidence evidence – two murders – both deceased close relatives of accused – accused under financial pressure in relation to each – circumstances of both killings indicative of being premeditated – evidence in relation to each that accused arranged the killings – coincidence evidence admissible – tendency evidence inadmissible – severance of counts refused Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 98(1), 101 Evidence Regulation 2015 (NSW) r 6(2) Cases Cited: Aravena v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 258; [2015] NSWCCA 288 CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288 DSJ v The Queen; NS v The Queen (2012) 84 NSWLR 758; [2012] NSWCCA 9 Ford v R [2009] NSWCCA 306; 201 A Crim R 451 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300 R v Afu; R v Caleo [2017] NSWSC 1780 R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1781 R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174; 217 A Crim R 487 R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457 Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina Mark Richard Caleo (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Ms M Cunneen SC (Crown) Mr G Brady SC with Ms R Khalilizadeh (Accused)