Stickland v The Queen

Stickland was found guilty of numerous sexual offences involving nine complainants and was convicted on 20 counts of indecent dealing, 6 counts of indecent assault, and 15 counts of gross indecency. The appeal to the High Court centred on the question of whether separate trials should have been ordered for the alleged offences and whether the reliance on similar fact evidence prejudiced the applicant. The court was also required to determine whether there was a reasonable possibility of concoction either at the time that the order was made for joint trials or in light of the evidence given at the trial.

The court considered the principles governing the joinder of counts and joint trials, noting that the trial judge had discretion to order separate trials if it would be in the interests of justice. However, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in ordering joint trials, as the evidence did not indicate a reasonable possibility of concoction or that the applicant was prejudiced by the joinder. The court also found that the similar fact evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, as it was necessary to establish the applicant's propensity to commit the offences and the complainants' credibility.

The court held that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in ordering joint trials and that there was no reasonable possibility of concoction. The court also found that the reliance on similar fact evidence was not unfair and did not prejudice the applicant. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the convictions be upheld. The court did not grant any relief to the applicant and confirmed the trial judge's decision to order joint trials. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that there was no miscarriage of justice.