R v Buckley

In the case of R v Buckley, the defendant was charged with multiple sexual offences. The court had to decide on the admissibility of certain evidence, the exercise of discretion under s.398A of the Crimes Act 1958, the need for a Longman warning regarding the alleged confession, and the effect of similar fact evidence on the jury. The court also had to consider whether the judge properly directed the jury on the weight of the evidence and the risks of collusion and innocent infection. The case involved several complainants, and the court had to determine the appropriate exercise of discretion in ordering separate trials.

The court found that the judge did not misapply s.398A by substituting the statutory test with one of his own making. The court held that the judge's description of the statutory requirements in terms of balance was an appropriate method of describing the test. The court also found that the alleged admission did not necessarily relate to any of the offences charged and that the judge should have given a clear Burns direction to the jury. The court held that the witness's expression of opinion as to the defendant's guilt should not have been allowed, and that the judge should have warned the jury of the risks of collusion and innocent infection.

The court found that the judge did not go too far in directing the jury that in certain events they would be bound to convict. The court held that the similar fact evidence was admissible to corroborate the complainant's testimony as to the offences charged or as to uncharged acts going to the relationship or context. The court also held that the judge's discretion to order separate trials was exercised properly, and that the jury was not affected by the contents of the suppression order attached to the door of the court.

The court ordered that the convictions be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the Court of Appeal for a re-trial.