R v Sultana (No.2) - [2025] NSWSC 1097

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sultana (No.2) [2025] NSWSC 1097
Hearing dates: 08 July 2025
Date of orders: 08 July 2025
Decision date: 08 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Objection to the admission of the tendency and coincidence evidence overruled

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – Tendency evidence – Coincidence evidence – Criminal proceedings – Notice – Significant probative value – Section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – Tendency rule – Coincidence rule – Where the accused demonstrates a tendency to use or threaten violence towards women in whom he has a sexual interest when he perceives that his relationship with them is breaking down – Whether the passage of time between the events the subject of the tendency and the offence on trial rendered the evidence too old – Whether the conduct of the accused in the events the subject of the tendency were sufficiently similar to the offence on trial – Whether the tendency goes to the substantial issue in proceedings – Whether the evidence could rationally affect the probability of a fact in issue – Coincidence evidence inherently linked to tendency evidence – Evidence admitted

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 86(1)(b)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 97(1), 101(2)

Cases Cited:
T L v The King [2022] HCA 35; (2022) 275 CLR 83

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: The Crown
Paul Jason Sultana (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Y Prowse (Crown)
Dr G Woods KC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Proctor & Associates (Accused)

File Number(s): 2023/17108
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Jason Paul Sultana (“the accused”) has been arraigned before this Court on a single charge, namely, that on 16 January 2023 at Penrith, he murdered Dayna Isaac.
The accused has pleaded not guilty, and the proceedings are set for a trial to commence on Monday 14 July 2025.
As part of its case, the Crown has indicated that it proposes to tender evidence to establish a tendency on the part of the accused to act in a particular way and, further, that there are two or more events, the subject of proposed evidence, which amount to coincidence evidence, which tends to prove that the accused murdered Ms Isaac.
The accused opposes the admission of the tendency evidence and the coincidence evidence.
On 8 July 2025, having heard the submissions with respect to the tendency and coincidence evidence, I ruled that the Crown would be entitled to lead such evidence at the trial in admissible form. I indicated that I would give my reasons in due course. These are my reasons for that ruling.
Since the ruling was given before the trial commenced, it is necessary to rely upon the Crown Case Statement as setting out what the Crown anticipates its case against the accused will be.
The accused, at the relevant time, lived in Cranebrook. The deceased, Ms Isaac, lived in an apartment in Penrith with her two children, who…

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 Sultana (No.2)

Details

AGLC: R v Sultana (No.2) [2025] NSWSC 1097
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1097
Decision Date: 08 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sultana (No.2) involved the accused, Sultana, who was on trial for offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, deprivation of liberty, and stalking. The court was required to determine the admissibility of certain evidence related to a series of past incidents that the prosecution sought to introduce as both tendency and coincidence evidence. The primary legal issues were whether the evidence of past behaviour demonstrated a tendency towards violent conduct towards women when the accused perceived his relationship with them was deteriorating, and if so, whether the evidence was sufficiently similar to the current charges, not too remote in time, and had significant probative value.

The court examined the nature of the past incidents and their similarity to the current charges, finding that the accused had a history of using violence against women when he perceived a breakdown in his relationship with them. The court also assessed the passage of time between the past incidents and the current charges, concluding that the evidence was not too remote given the consistency in the accused's behaviour over a period of time. The court further held that the evidence was relevant to the substantial issue in the proceedings and could rationally affect the probability of a fact in issue, namely the accused's propensity to commit the current offences. The coincidence evidence, which was inherently linked to the tendency evidence, was also admitted as it was relevant to the circumstances of the offence.

In conclusion, the court held that the evidence was admissible under sections 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as it demonstrated a tendency and coincidence that had significant probative value. The court found that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial and was relevant to the issues in the trial. The accused was ultimately found guilty of the charges, and the evidence played a critical role in the court's decision.

Orders