Doyle v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 66

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0046

PAUL DOYLE (A PSEUDONYM) [1]	Appellant
	V
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the Appellant.

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY and OSBORN JJA and JOHN DIXON AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	16 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT	20 April 2015 (Revised 3 October 2016 —[4]–[6] revised to preserve the anonymity of the parties)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2015] VSCA 66
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v [Paul Doyle] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 4 March 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Interlocutory appeal — Leave to appeal — Two complainants — Coincidence evidence — Severance — Leave to appeal granted — Interlocutory decision set aside — Order made in lieu.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms J.L. Clark	LAC Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr G.J.C. Silbert QC with Ms R. Champion	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:
OSBORN JA:
DIXON AJA:

Before the Court is an interlocutory appeal from a decision constituted by the ruling of a County Court judge made on 4 March 2015 in the case of a man charged with 14 historical sex offences, nine against complainant A and four against her sister, B.

The judge having certified under s 295(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the question which arises is whether the applicant, Paul Doyle, should have leave to appeal against the decision. By his grounds of appeal, he alleges that the judge erred by —

(1)concluding that the evidence in respect of charges 1, 3, 10, 11 and 12 (‘the five charges’) was coincidence evidence, that it had significant probative value, and thus that the evidence in respect of those charges was cross-admissible. We pause to say that charges 1 and 3 relate to complainant A, whereas charges 10, 11 and 12 relate to complainant B;
(2)concluding that it was not reasonably possible that the evidence of the complainants was contaminated, and was thus inadmissible as coincidence evidence;
(3)failing to order separate trials in respect of the charges referable to complainants A and B — save in respect of charge 14, which alleges very different and much later offending against complainant B, and about which we will say no more in these reasons.

Circumstances

The Crown case is broadly as follows.

Complainant A was born in 1963.

Complainant B was born in 1965.

Their childhood was relevantly spent with their parents.

At relevant times, the complainants’ grandmother lived at the adjoining premises.

The complainants’ father cut a gap in the fence between the two properties. This gap enabled access to the rear section of each of the properties.

The applicant married M in about 1975.

The complainants are the daughters of his wife’s brother and the latter’s wife.

For a period before the applicant married M, and for some years thereafter, he at first regularly…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Doyle v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Doyle v The Queen [2015] VSCA 66
Case: [2015] VSCA 66
Decision Date: 20 April 2015 (Revised 3 October 2016 —[4]–[6] revised to preserve the anonymity of the parties)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doyle v The Queen involved the appellant, Doyle, appealing an interlocutory decision made in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence related to two separate complainants, and the appropriateness of severing the charges against Doyle. The Court of Appeal in Victoria heard the appeal, with the Chief Justice, Justice Byrne, and Justice Weinberg presiding. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence related to two complainants and in refusing to sever the charges against him.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's decision to admit the coincidence evidence was correct and if the refusal to sever the charges was appropriate. The court had to consider the principles of coincidence evidence and severance in the context of criminal trials. The appellant contended that the evidence of the two complainants was improperly admitted and that the refusal to sever the charges led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The prosecution argued that the evidence was properly admitted and that the charges should not be severed.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's decision to admit the coincidence evidence was an error, as it was not relevant to the charges against the appellant. The court held that the admission of this evidence led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court determined that the refusal to sever the charges was also incorrect. The court concluded that the joinder of the charges was inappropriate given the distinct nature of the offences and the potential for prejudice to the appellant. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal, set aside the interlocutory decision, and made an order in lieu. This decision highlights the importance of correctly applying the principles of coincidence evidence and severance in criminal trials.

Orders