R v Brian Spillane (No 2) - [2016] NSWDC 333

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brian Spillane (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 333
Hearing dates: 20 September 2016
Date of orders: 21 September 2016
Decision date: 21 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
Tendency evidence admitted
The application for separate trials is refused

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Application for separate trials – Tendency evidence – No need for close similarities in alleged behaviour - Capability of demonstrating a state of mind.
Cases Cited: Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330
R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306; 201 A Crim R 451
R v IMM [2016] HCA 14
R v PWD [2010] NSWCCA 209; 205 A Crim R 75
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Brian Spillane
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms E Wilkins SC – The Crown
Mr P Little – The accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Benjamin & Leonardo Criminal Defence Lawyers – The accused

File Number(s): 2008/55729
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the names of the complainants or of any material which may tend to identify the complainants.

Judgment

Introduction

In a judgment I delivered yesterday concerning the accused’s application for a trial by judge alone, I briefly set out the procedural history of this trial and explained why it was that I was making rulings in advance of the trial due to commence on the 4th of October 2016.
This judgment concerns 2 related applications, one made by the Crown and one made by the accused. The Crown seeks the admission of what it says is tendency evidence. The accused seeks that the trials in relation to each of several complainants be held separately. The parties agree that the 2 applications are intertwined and that if I grant the Crown’s application there would be no basis on which I would order separate trials.
The accused faces trial on an indictment containing 8 counts, some of which are in the alternative, relating to allegations made by 6 separate complainants. They were students at St Stanislaus College where the accused held various positions over a number of years. The allegations extend from 1971 to 1990. The Crown application is that the evidence of each complainant be admitted as tendency evidence which the jury can take into account when considering the allegations made by all other complainants.
The Crown seeks admission of other tendency evidence as well. The accused has made a number of admissions in relation to sexual offences committed on other boys. The admissions are contained in a document headed “Statement of Facts” which has been signed by the accused. The Crown seeks the admission of evidence, as tendency evidence, that the accused has admitted the commission of the offences set out in that document. The Crown does not seek the admission of evidence that convictions have resulted from those admissions. It is the accused’s admitted behaviour which is relevant not the resulting legal consequences.
The Crown has to demonstrate that…

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 R v Brian Spillane (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Brian Spillane (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 333
Case: [2016] NSWDC 333
Decision Date: 21 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Spillane (No 2) involved the defendant, Brian Spillane, who faced trial for multiple sexual offences. The court was required to decide on two primary legal issues: whether certain evidence, referred to as tendency evidence, could be admitted and if separate trials should be granted for the different charges against the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The first legal issue was whether the evidence of the defendant's past sexual activities could be admitted as tendency evidence. The prosecution argued that the past acts were relevant to demonstrate a state of mind and propensity towards the charged offences, despite not being closely similar. The second issue was whether the court should grant a separate trial for each of the charges against Spillane. The defence argued that a separate trial was necessary to prevent prejudice to the defendant arising from the cumulative effect of multiple charges.

The court found that the tendency evidence was admissible as it was capable of demonstrating the defendant's state of mind and propensity towards the charged offences. The court held that close similarities in the past acts were not necessary for the evidence to be relevant. Furthermore, the court refused the application for separate trials, finding that the evidence of the separate charges was not so prejudicial that it necessitated separate trials. The court held that the prejudicial effect could be managed through appropriate directions to the jury.

In conclusion, the court admitted the tendency evidence and denied the application for separate trials. The decision emphasised the importance of considering the relevance of tendency evidence and the potential for prejudice in determining whether separate trials are necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

Tendency evidence admitted

The application for separate trials is refused

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Brian Spillane (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 333
Hearing dates:	20 September 2016
Date of orders:	21 September 2016
Decision date:	21 September 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Tendency evidence admitted The application for separate trials is refused
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Application for separate trials – Tendency evidence – No need for close similarities in alleged behaviour - Capability of demonstrating a state of mind.
Cases Cited:	Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330 R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306; 201 A Crim R 451 R v IMM [2016] HCA 14 R v PWD [2010] NSWCCA 209; 205 A Crim R 75
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Crown Brian Spillane
Representation:	Counsel: Ms E Wilkins SC – The Crown Mr P Little – The accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Benjamin & Leonardo Criminal Defence Lawyers – The accused
File Number(s):	2008/55729
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the names of the complainants or of any material which may tend to identify the complainants.