District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dixon (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 368 Hearing dates: 29 August 2023 Date of orders: 7 September 2023 Decision date: 07 September 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC DCJ Decision: See [43-45]
Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Severance of count on indictment
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – admissibility of evidence at trial
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Rodriguez-Saldana
Texts Cited: NA
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex (The Crown)
Dixon (a pseudonym) (The Accused)Representation: Solicitors:
Boenisch for the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions
Weller for the accused
File Number(s): 2022/00184667, 2022/00148556 Publication restriction: Section 578A Crimes Act applies
Severance ruling
-
The accused is charged by way of indictment with 6 offences. Count 1 on the indictment alleges sexual intercourse without consent knowing the complainant was not consenting. That complainant is GM and the alleged date of offending is on or about 6 December 2021.
-
For the five other charges the complainant in each case is AD. Counts 4 and 5 on the indictment are allegations of sexual intercourse without consent knowing the complainant was not consenting. Counts 2 and 3 are allegations of assault and count 6 is an allegation of choking. All of the counts in which the complainant is AD allegedly occurred on 15 May 2022.
-
By notice of motion dated 4 August 2023 the accused seeks an order that pursuant to section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act (“CPA”) count 1 be severed from and tried separately to the other five counts.
-
In evidence on this application was the Crown case statement, statements of the complainants and a tendency notice the Crown has served. The tendency notice postdates the notice of motion. The trial of the matter is listed for 3 October 2023 and no issue is taken that the notice is not reasonable.
-
The tendency notice helps to define the issues on this application. That is because if the tendency evidence is permitted to be led then the severance application would be unsuccessful. In saying that the argument for the accused is not solely that the evidence is not tendency evidence because of what is said to be the extreme conduct alleged in counts 2 to 6 as compared to count 1. The accused further argues the evidence of the counts 2 through to 6 is of an alleged extreme level of violence including whipping and other matters which are said to be highly prejudicial. The argument is that (with reference to s101) the probative value of the evidence does not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. That unfair prejudice is said to be that the jury may misuse the evidence and if they accept counts 2 to 6, (and in particular, counts 2, 3 and 5) will simply punish the accused and find him guilty of count 1.
Continue reading R v Dixon (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Dixon (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 368
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 368
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in this case centred around the severance of the counts on the indictment and the admissibility of evidence presented at trial. The primary concern was whether the severance of the counts was appropriate, and if the evidence presented was admissible in light of the severance. The court needed to determine whether the severance would prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial and whether the evidence presented was relevant and reliable.
The court held that the severance of the counts was appropriate and did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court found that the evidence presented was relevant and reliable, and thus admissible. The court also emphasised the importance of the trial judge's role in ensuring that the trial remains fair and just for all parties involved.
The court ordered that the severance of the counts on the indictment was valid and that the evidence presented was admissible. The court also emphasised the importance of the trial judge's role in ensuring that the trial remains fair and just for all parties involved. The decision in this case provides valuable guidance for future cases involving severance of counts on an indictment and the admissibility of evidence at trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [43-45]
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.