R v Brendan John Riordan

Case [2006] NSWDC 58
CITATION: R v Brendan John Riordan [2006] NSWDC 58
HEARING DATE(S): 1/5/06- 5/5/06
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
22 September 2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 05/08/2006
JUDGMENT OF: Bennett SC DCJ
DECISION: Application for separate trials refused; Coincidence evidence admissible on a limited basis
CATCHWORDS: Evidence - Accused charged with maliciously inflicting grevious bodily harm with intent to do so upon two children and assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the sibbling of one of them - Multiple counts on indictment - Defence application for separate trial - Coincidence evidence
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
CASES CITED: R v Folbigg [2002] NSWSC 1127
Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461
R v Ellis (2003) 58 NSWLR 700
R v Folbigg [2005] NSWCCA 23
R v Folbigg [2003] NSWCCA 17
Folbigg v The Queen [2005] HCA Trans 657
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457
R v Martin [2002] NSWSC 332
PARTIES: DPP
Brendan John Riordan
FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0182
COUNSEL: M Grogan - Crown
J Fliece - Accused

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 These are the reasons for my decision given on Monday the 8th May 2006 to reject the application by the accused for separate trials in respect of the charges upon which he has been arraigned, and to allow the Crown to adduce in each case evidence of the injuries suffered by the alleged victims as “coincidence evidence”.

2 The accused Brendan John Riordan was arraigned before me on Monday the 1st May 2006 upon an indictment charging him with the following offences:


      Count One
      Between 6 April 2001 and 28 June 2001 at Gunnedah in the State of New South Wales, did maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm upon C R with intent thereby to do grievous bodily harm to her .
              Crimes Ac t 1900. Section 33
      Count Two
      Between 20 June 2001 and 29 June 2001 at Gunnedah in the State of New South Wales, did assault A B thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to her.
              Crimes Act , 1 900. Section 59(1 )

      Count Three
      On or about 9 May 2003 at Armidale in the State of New South Wales, did maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm upon T V with intent thereby to do grievous bodily harm to her.
              Crimes Act, 1900. Section 33
      3 The essence of the Crown case is that the accused compressed the chests of each of these children, thereby causing multiple rib fractures in the case of C R and T V, and in the case of A B causing petechial bruising to her face, neck and upper chest, mild inflammation to her liver, and mild renal failure. In addition, both C R and T V are alleged to have suffered fractures to their legs at the hands of the accused, but it is the injuries to the chests of these children upon which the Crown relies for the grievous bodily harm charged against the accused.

Prohibition Against the Publication of the…

Continue reading R v Brendan John Riordan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Brendan John Riordan [2006] NSWDC 58
Case
[2006] NSWDC 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Brendan John Riordan faced charges of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do so upon two children, as well as assaulting the sibling of one of the victims, occasioning actual bodily harm. The case involved multiple counts on the indictment, and Riordan sought a separate trial for each count. The court had to decide whether the evidence from one count could be admitted in the trial for another count, considering the principle of coincidence evidence.

The court considered whether the evidence from one count could be admitted in the trial for another count. The primary legal issue was whether the evidence was relevant and necessary to prove an essential fact in issue between the prosecution and the accused. The court assessed the nature of the coincidence evidence and its potential impact on the fairness of the trial. It also evaluated the possibility of prejudice to the accused if the evidence was admitted.

The court found that the coincidence evidence was relevant and necessary to prove an essential fact in issue. It was necessary to demonstrate the accused's intent and the nature of the relationship between the incidents. The court ruled that the evidence could be admitted on a limited basis, ensuring that it did not unfairly prejudice the accused. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the accused received a fair trial while also allowing the prosecution to present a complete case. The application for separate trials was refused, and the coincidence evidence was admitted on a limited basis.

The court ordered that the application for separate trials be refused and that the coincidence evidence be admitted on a limited basis. This decision allowed the prosecution to present a comprehensive case while ensuring that the accused's right to a fair trial was upheld. The court's ruling balanced the interests of both parties and aimed to achieve a just outcome in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for separate trials refused; Coincidence evidence admissible on a limited basis

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.