DJW v R

The case of DJW v R involved the applicant, DJW, who was indicted on multiple counts of sexual assault involving six complainants. The primary judge decided not to order separate trials for all complainants, a decision DJW appealed on the grounds that it was an error. The appeal was heard by the court, which needed to determine if the primary judge's decision to not separate the trials was correct and whether the evidence's probative value and prejudicial effect were assessed appropriately.

The court examined the legal issues, including whether the primary judge erred in not ordering separate trials for all complainants and if the evidence of one complainant was too dissimilar to have significant probative value. The court also considered whether the primary judge's assessment of the prejudicial effect of the evidence was flawed. The court found that the primary judge's approach was correct, as there was no real chance or possibility of concoction or contamination in relation to four of the complainants, and the differences in the complainants' ages did not significantly affect the probative value of their evidence. Additionally, the court noted that the primary judge had appropriately directed the jury to address any prejudice.

The court concluded that the primary judge's decision to not order separate trials was not an error, as the probative value of the evidence was significant, and the prejudicial effect was appropriately managed through jury directions. The court found that the differences in the complainants' ages and the varying nature of the allegations did not undermine the probative value of the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the primary judge's decision was upheld.