Legal Research
Cases
Jacobs (a pseudonym) v The King

Jacobs (a pseudonym) v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 309 11 December 2024

Sexual Offences Against Children

Admissibility of Evidence

Appeal

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0122

MICHAEL JACOBS (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]In order not to prejudice the administration of justice, a pseudonym has been used in place of the name of the applicant and the reasons have been prepared in a form which omits identifying details.

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 December 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 309
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jacobs (a pseudonym) [2024] VCC 878 (Judge Trapnell)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Interlocutory appeal – Sexual offences against children – Fourteen charges involving three complainants – Whether probative value of tendency substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect – Sexual interest and willingness to act on that interest – Significant probative value – Charges linked by familial connection and trust – Risk to prejudice can be overcome with jury directions – Evidence is cross-admissible – Correctness standard of appellate review applied – Leave to appeal refused.

Crimes Act 1958, ss 49A(1), 49D(1); Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 295(3)(b); Evidence Act 2008, ss 97(1), 101(2).

Dempsey (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2019] VSCA 224; Harris (A Pseudonym) v The Queen [2024] VSCA 43; Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; Moore (a pseudonym) v The King (2024) 419 ALR 169; R v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; TL v The King (2022) CLR 83, applied; Clark (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2015] VSCA 297; DPP v Pearson (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 336; Elomar v The Queen (2014) 316 ALR 206; Gardiner v The Queen (2006) 162 A Crim R 233; RWC v R [2010] NSWCCA 332, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr CK Wareham with Mr R Robertson
Respondent:		Mr JCJ McWilliams with Ms P Long
Solicitors
Applicant:	Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

---

PRIEST JA
T FORREST JA:

The applicant is currently the subject of a 14-charge indictment in the County Court. It is alleged that the applicant sexually offended against three complainants: ‘AB’, ‘CD’ and ‘EF’.

The charges against AB

Charges 1 to 5 allege that the applicant intentionally sexually penetrated AB, a child under the age of 12 years, in various ways.[2] Charges 6 and 7 allege that the applicant sexually touched, AB, a child under 16 years, in circumstances contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct.[3] These offences were alleged to have been committed between 1 April 2018 and 30 June 2021.
[2]Contrary to s 49A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[3]Contrary to s 49D(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

The charges against CD

Charges 8 to 12 allege the applicant sexually touched CD, a child under the age of 16 years, in circumstances contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct.[4] These offences were alleged to have been committed between 1 April 2018 and 31 July 2021.
[4]Contrary to…

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 Jacobs (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Jacobs (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 309
Case: [2024] VSCA 309
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, identified as Jacobs, appealed against a decision to admit evidence of sexual offences against children, involving three complainants, under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008. The lower court ruled that the probative value of this evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. The High Court was tasked with reviewing the correctness of this decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the probative value of the tendered evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect, as required by section 97(1) of the Evidence Act 2008. The court also considered the relevance of the evidence in light of the charges being linked by familial connection and trust, and the risk of prejudice to the accused. It examined the authorities on cross-admissibility of evidence in sexual offence cases and the appropriate standard of appellate review.

The court held that the evidence of past sexual offences had significant probative value, particularly given the familial connection and the trust factor inherent in the relationship between the accused and the victims. The risk of prejudice, while acknowledged, could be mitigated through appropriate jury directions. The court applied the correctness standard of appellate review and found that the lower court had correctly admitted the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

No further orders were made.

Orders