Reeves (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Reeves (a pseudonym) appealed against the refusal of the Supreme Court of Victoria to certify an interlocutory ruling of the County Court of Victoria. The respondent, the Crown, had charged Reeves with using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity, to groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity, and to transmit indecent communications to a person under 16 years of age. The appeal focused on the trial judge's refusal to certify certain interlocutory rulings, including the admissibility of tendency evidence relating to Reeves' previous conduct with adolescent girls, and whether the mobile phone seized from him was done so under a valid power of seizure.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to certify the interlocutory rulings regarding the admissibility of the tendency evidence and the validity of the power of seizure used to obtain the mobile phone. The court considered whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the relevance and probative value of the tendency evidence, as well as whether the power of seizure was valid under the common law or the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The court also examined the decision of the County Court to refuse leave to appeal on all grounds.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to certify the interlocutory rulings. In relation to the tendency evidence, the court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed its relevance and probative value, and had not erred in admitting it. The court further held that the power of seizure was valid under the common law, and the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence obtained from the mobile phone. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal on all grounds. The appeal was thus unsuccessful, and the interlocutory rulings of the County Court remained uncertified.