P v Tasmania - [2009] TASSC 81

[2009] TASSC 81

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: P v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 81

PARTIES: P
v

STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO/S: CCA 395/2009
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Tasmania v RDP [2009] TASSC 72

DELIVERED ON:  11 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  10 August 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer, Blow and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Relevance – Particular cases – Relationship evidence – Rape – Evidence of prior uncharged rapes and violence – Admitted to place evidence of complainant in context.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s55.

R v Etherington (1982) 32 SASR 230; Harriman v R (1989) 167 CLR 590; R v Wickham, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 17 December 1991; R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510; Fordham v R (1997) 98 A Crim R 359; Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106; R v Toki (No 3) (2000) 116 A Crim R 536; R v AN (2000) 117 A Crim R 176; KRM v R (2001) 206 CLR 221; HML v R (2008) 235 CLR 334, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2675]
Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Prejudicial evidence – Particular cases – Other matters – Relationship evidence – Rape – Evidence of prior uncharged rapes and violence – Danger of use by jury as evidence of character or tendency.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s137.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2682]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  T Jago, E Hughes
             Respondent:  M S Wilson
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 81
Number of paragraphs: 35

Serial No 81/2009
File No CCA 395/2009

P v TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

SLICER J
BLOW J
TENNENT J
11 September 2009

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 81/2009
File No CCA 395/2009

P v TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

SLICER J
11 September 2009

I have read in draft form the reasons for judgment of Blow J and agree with both his reasoning and conclusion. I would dismiss the appeal.
File No CCA 395/2009

P v TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW J
11 September 2009

This is an appeal against a conviction for rape. The appellant was found guilty by a jury on a charge alleging he raped his former partner vaginally on 9 July 2006. The Crown led evidence from the complainant at the trial that, on earlier occasions, when she had not been interested in having sex with him, he had held her down, punched her, and verbally abused her. The Crown also led evidence from her that, on earlier occasions, he had had anal and vaginal intercourse with her without her consent. The Crown did not rely on that evidence as evidence of any sort of tendency on the part of the appellant, but relied on it as "relationship evidence" that could help…

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 P v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: P v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 81
Case: [2009] TASSC 81
Decision Date: 11 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of P v Tasmania involved a criminal prosecution for serious sexual offences. The accused, who was charged with multiple counts of rape, sought to introduce evidence of prior uncharged instances of alleged rape and violence against the complainant. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence.

The court had to decide whether such evidence was relevant to the case, and if so, whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. This involved considering the principles set out in the Evidence Act 2008 (Tas), particularly the provisions regarding the relevance of evidence in proving a fact in issue and the exclusion of evidence if its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The Supreme Court found that the evidence of prior uncharged offences was relevant because it placed the complainant's evidence in context. The court considered that the evidence was necessary to provide a full and fair picture of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offences. The probative value of the evidence in showing the complainant's credibility and the nature of her interactions with the accused was deemed to outweigh any prejudicial effect it might have on the jury. Consequently, the court admitted the evidence.

The court's decision allowed the accused to present a comprehensive defence by introducing context about the complainant's past interactions and allegations. This evidence was considered critical to understanding the dynamics of the alleged offences and the complainant's credibility.

Orders