1. The evidence of each charged offence is admissible on each other charge for the purposes of proving the tendencies articulated by the Crown.
2. Evidence of the uncharged acts is admissible as tendency evidence.
3. The evidence of LH as to the first incident, summarised at [23](d), not be admitted as tendency evidence.
4. That there be a voir dire as to the evidence of the second incident, summarised at [30](e), following which the final ruling as to admissibility will be made.
5. Evidence of the first incident be adduced as context evidence if the evidence of the second incident is admitted.
6. The evidence of HC not be admitted as tendency evidence.
7. The evidence of the pretext call is admissible.
Category:
Principal Judgment
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Trial –Act of indecency on a person above the age of 10 years but under the age of 16 years – Act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years – Sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years
[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 Evans
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Evans [2015] ACTSC 137
Case
[2015] ACTSC 137
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Evans, the appellant, Evans, faced trial for various charges including acts of indecency on a person above the age of ten but under the age of sixteen years, an act of indecency on a person under the age of sixteen years, and sexual intercourse with a person under the age of sixteen years. The proceedings took place in the relevant court of jurisdiction, which examined the admissibility of evidence related to these charges.
The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of certain evidence. This included determining whether evidence of uncharged acts could be admitted as tendency evidence, as well as whether statements made during a pretext call could be considered admissions. The court also had to decide on the admissibility of context evidence related to certain incidents.
The court ruled that evidence of each charged offence was admissible on other charges to prove the tendencies articulated by the Crown. It found that evidence of uncharged acts could be admitted as tendency evidence, but specified that evidence of a particular incident, summarised at [23](d), should not be admitted as such. The court ordered a voir dire to be held regarding the admissibility of evidence of a second incident, summarised at [30](e), with a final ruling to be made following this process. If the second incident's evidence was admitted, the first incident's evidence would be adduced as context evidence. The court also ruled that evidence of a pretext call was admissible, but that certain statements made by a witness, HC, would not be admitted as tendency evidence.
The court's orders included the admissibility of evidence on various charges, the exclusion of certain evidence as tendency evidence, and the direction for a voir dire on the admissibility of another set of evidence. The court's decision thus shaped the parameters within which the trial would proceed, particularly in relation to the evidence that could be presented and considered by the jury.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The evidence of each charged offence is admissible on each other charge for the purposes of proving the tendencies articulated by the Crown.
2. Evidence of the uncharged acts is admissible as tendency evidence.
3. The evidence of LH as to the first incident, summarised at [23](d), not be admitted as tendency evidence.
4. That there be a voir dire as to the evidence of the second incident, summarised at [30](e), following which the final ruling as to admissibility will be made.
5. Evidence of the first incident be adduced as context evidence if the evidence of the second incident is admitted.
6. The evidence of HC not be admitted as tendency evidence.
7. The evidence of the pretext call is admissible.