CA v R [2019] NSWCCA 166

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CA v R [2019] NSWCCA 166 Hearing dates: 22 February 2019 Date of orders: 24 July 2019 Decision date: 24 July 2019 Before: Price J at [1]; Adamson J at [183]; Hidden AJ at [196] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) in respect of ground 1A. (2) Allow the appeal. (3) Quash the appellant's convictions and sentence. (4) Subject to (5) below, order that there be a re-trial of the appellant. (5) Order that the appellant be tried separately on counts 1-20 from counts 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34 and 35. (6) Remit the matter for mention at the District Court at Sydney on 2 August 2019 at 9.30am. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against convictions – sexual assault – multiple complainants – tendency evidence – whether error by judge in not severing counts of indictment – whether judge failed to identify the fact in issue – whether tendency evidence lead to establish identity of offender – cross-admissibility of complainant's evidence – whether evidence was capable of proving appellant's sexual interest had significant probative value – whether common features of sexual offending – whether location of offending relevant to establish tendency – whether probative value outweighed danger of bolstering identification evidence – whether danger of impermissible co-incidence reasoning – whether directions could reduce prejudicial effect – whether error in judge's directions to jury – erroneous use of metaphor – whether final direction overcame erroneous metaphor – failure by counsel to seek re-direction – rule 4 – whether potential injustice – photo board identification – whether photo array suggested person in police custody – whether probative value of evidence was outweighed by danger of prejudice – whether error in not discharging jury – whether judge erred in not properly considering issues relevant to the application to discharge pursuant to s 53C(1)(a) Jury Act – whether error in moving to a majority verdict – whether error in failing to give Black direction Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61D, 61E, 61F, 78K Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) r 4 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 97, 98, 101, 115, 135, 137, 138 Jury Act 1977 (NSW) ss 53A, 53B, 53C, 55F Cases Cited: BC v R [2019] NSWCCA 111 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44 Burrell v R [2007] NSWCCA 65; (2007) 190 A Crim R 148 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 DAO v The Queen (2011) 81 NSWLR 568; [2011] NSWCCA 63 Decision restricted [2018] NSWCCA 164 Hanna v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 390; [2008] NSWCCA 173 Hoang v R [2018] NSWCCA 166 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; (2017) 92 ALJR 52 McPhillamy v The Queen [2018] HCA 52; (2018) 92 ALJR 1045 Pace and Collins v The Queen [2014] VSCA 317; (2014) 247 A Crim R 1 Petroulias v R (2007) 73 NSWLR 134, [2007] NSWCCA 134 R v Batty (NSWCCA, unreported, 6 August 1997) The Queen v Bauer [2018] HCA 40; (2018) 92 ALJR 846 R v FAP [1999] NSWCCA 278 R v Germakian (2007) 70 NSWLR 467; [2007] NSWCCA 373 The Queen v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; [1992] HCA 16 R v Lamb and Ors [2016] NSWCCA 135 R v Orgles (1993) 93 Cr App R 185 R v Razzak [2004] NSWCCA 62 R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545 Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40 Sokolowskyj v R [2014] NSWCCA 55; (2014) 239 A Crim R 528 The Queen v Roberts [2004] QCA 366 Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99, [1999] HCA 52 Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Council, Second Reading Speech to Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 (NSW) (Hansard), 9 May 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CA (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr G Brady SC and Ms K Edwards (Appellant) Mr F Veltro and Ms C Curtis (Respondent)