Dao v R (No 2)

In Dao v R (No 2), the appellant, previously convicted on a number of counts of sexual offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), appealed against his convictions. The appeal centred on the admissibility of evidence and the propriety of the trial process. The primary judge's decisions to deny separate trials for each complainant and to admit evidence of tendency were scrutinised, alongside the overall reliability of the jury's verdicts.

The legal issues addressed by the court included whether the primary judge had erred by failing to order separate trials for each of the four complainants and by admitting evidence of tendency concerning each respective complainant. These issues were considered in light of sections 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Additionally, the court evaluated whether the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, particularly whether the jury should have entertained doubts about the allegations made by two of the complainants, while remaining satisfied beyond reasonable doubt regarding the other two.

The court determined that there was no jurisdiction to entertain the issue of separate trials as it had already been adjudicated in Dao v R [2011] NSWCCA 63. However, the court found that the verdicts were indeed unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. It was concluded that the jury ought to have entertained doubts about the allegations made by two complainants, while it remained open to them to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt regarding the remaining two. There was also a real possibility that the jury had used flawed cases in support of their conclusions on the remaining allegations. Consequently, the appeal against the convictions was allowed. The convictions were quashed, and sentences in respect of certain counts were quashed with verdicts of acquittal entered, while new trials were ordered for other counts.