R v D, VF

The case of R v D, VF, involved an accused charged with sexual offences against two complainants, T and M. The accused sought a separate trial for the counts involving T and M on the basis that the evidence of each complainant was not cross-admissible on the respective counts involving the other. The court was required to consider the principles applying to the application for separate trials in sexual cases and assess whether the evidence of each complainant was cross-admissible.

The primary legal issue was whether the evidence of T and M was cross-admissible for the purposes of the respective counts involving the other complainant. This involved a detailed analysis of section 34P of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence. The court had to determine if the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant, and if the evidence had strong probative value in relation to the specific issues at trial.

The court examined the relevant authorities and found that the evidence of T and M was not cross-admissible because it did not meet the criteria set out in section 34P(2). The court held that the evidence of each complainant was not sufficiently distinct from the other to warrant separate trials. The court also considered the principles governing the cross-admissibility of evidence in sexual offence cases, as established in previous decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value, and that the evidence did not have strong probative value in relation to the specific issues at trial.

The final orders of the court were that the application for separate trials was dismissed, and that the counts involving T and M would be tried together. The court's decision was based on the principle that the prejudicial effect of the evidence of each complainant outweighed its probative value, and that the evidence did not have strong probative value in relation to the specific issues at trial.