Regina v Daley - [2002] NSWSC 279

CITATION: Regina v Daley [2002] NSWSC 279 revised - 24/04/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70001/01

HEARING DATE(S): 24/04/01
22/05/01
24/05/01
23/07/01
31/07/01
14/08/01
20/12/01

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 September 2001

PARTIES :

Crown
Anthony James Daley

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

COUNSEL : John Kiely SC (Crown)
Eugene Wasilenia (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Martin Churchill (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: criminal law - detaining for advantage - sexual assault - aggravated sexual assault - attempted sexual assault - armed robbery - indecent assault - admissibility of evidence - tendency and coincidence evidence - DNA evidence - separate trials - illegally or improperly obtained evidence - impropriety - picture, object, voice identification

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997

CASES CITED: R v OGD [No.2] [2000] NSW CCA 404; (2000) 50 NSWLR 433
Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528
Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461
Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457
R v Lock (unreported, 25 March 1997)
R v Lewis, unreported, 20 June 1996
R v Perry (1982) 150 CLR 580
R v Swaffield; R v Pavic [1998] HCA 1; (1998) 192 CLR 159
R v McPhail and Tivey (1988) 36 A Crim R 390

DECISION: Ref para 179

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

SIMPSON J

14 September 2001

REGINA v Anthony James DALEY

Judgment

HER HONOUR :

1 The accused was arraigned on an indictment containing 21 charges. Four counts are of detaining for advantage; five of aggravated sexual assault; three of attempted sexual assault; eight of armed robbery; and one of indecent assault. He indicated that he intended to plead not guilty to each charge. The Crown served on the accused’s legal representatives a brief of the evidence it proposed to adduce, together with a notice of intention to adduce both tendency and coincidence evidence (Evidence Act 1995, ss 97,98). The trial was fixed for hearing, with an estimate of six weeks, to commence on 7 May 2001. The charges involve allegations made by eight different complainants, all of them female.

2 By notice of motion filed on 30 April 2001, the accused sought a number of orders concerning the future progress of the trial. The first order he sought was for a separate trial of the charges relevant to each individual complainant - that is, that there be eight separate trials. As an alternative in the event of failure in relation to this application, he sought separate trials of groups of the charges, arranged by reference to common features, such as the dates or the locations of the alleged offences, or other common evidentiary features.

3 Further, he sought pre-trial rulings on whether certain identified aspects of the evidence would be admitted, either on a joint trial or on separate trials. This included, but was far from limited to, the proposed tendency and coincidence evidence. Indeed, it appeared to me that the challenged evidence…

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 Regina v Daley

Details

AGLC: Regina v Daley [2002] NSWSC 279
Case: [2002] NSWSC 279
Decision Date: 14 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Daley, the defendant, Daley, faced multiple charges including detaining for advantage, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, armed robbery, indecent assault, and others. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which delivered a decision on the admissibility of evidence, including DNA evidence and tendency and coincidence evidence, as well as the propriety of conducting separate trials. The court had to consider whether evidence obtained illegally or improperly should be excluded, as well as issues of picture, object, and voice identification.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide included the admissibility of evidence obtained through improper means and the relevance of tendency and coincidence evidence in determining guilt. The court also needed to address whether certain offences should be tried separately or together. Additionally, the court examined the reliability and probative value of DNA evidence and other forms of identification evidence in relation to the charges against Daley.

The court concluded that certain evidence, particularly that which was obtained illegally or improperly, should be excluded from the trial to ensure a fair process. The court found that DNA evidence and other forms of identification evidence were sufficiently reliable and probative to be admitted. The court further determined that some offences should be tried separately due to their distinct nature and to prevent prejudice to the defendant. The court's reasoning was based on established principles of criminal procedure and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the public interest in convicting those who commit serious crimes.

The final orders of the court included the exclusion of certain illegally or improperly obtained evidence, the admission of reliable DNA and identification evidence, and the direction that certain offences be tried separately. This decision provided clarity on the admissibility of evidence and the conduct of trials in cases involving multiple serious offences, contributing to the legal framework governing criminal proceedings in Australia.

Orders