Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v C

Tasmania v C

Case [2017] TASSC 9 13 October 2016

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2017] TASSC 9

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v C [2017] TASSC 9

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  C

FILE NO:   135/2015
DELIVERED ON:  13 October 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  20 September 2016
RULING OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Propensity, tendency and coincidence – Admissibility and relevancy – For particular purpose – Sexual offences – Evidence alleging tendency to have sexual interest and commit sexual offences not admitted.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss 97(1), 101(2), 137.
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14, 98 ALJR 529; R v Matonwal [2016] NSWCCA 174; DPP v Martin (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 219, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2782]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             State:  P Sherriff
             Accused:  J Oxley
Solicitors:
             State:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 9
Number of paragraphs: 32

Serial No 9/2017
File No 135/2015

STATE OF TASMANIA v C

REASONS FOR RULING PEARCE J

13 October 2016

The accused is arraigned on one count of indecent assault and one count of sexual intercourse with a young person. It is alleged that both crimes were committed between 1 April 1997 and 30 June 1997 against the son of the woman with whom the accused was then in a relationship. At that time the complainant was aged 12. The Crown has given written notice pursuant to the Evidence Act 2001, s 97(1)(a), that it intends to adduce evidence of other sexual conduct between the accused and the complainant as tendency evidence. The Crown also contends that the evidence which is the subject of the notice is admissible as what is commonly referred to as context evidence. The accused objects to the proposed evidence and submits that it is inadmissible on either basis. I agreed, pursuant to the Criminal Code, s 361A, to determine the question of the admissibility of the evidence before a jury is sworn. It was agreed that I resolve the question of the admissibility of the evidence without evidence and by reference to the contents of the Crown papers as if proved.

The complainant's circumstances

At the time of the alleged crimes the complainant lived with his mother and elder sister on a small rural property near a town on the outskirts of Launceston. In early 1997 the complainant's mother met the accused at university where they were both students. The accused was then about 43. In about April or May of that year they commenced a relationship after which the accused frequently visited her home and often stayed. He spent time alone with the complainant at the property, both in the house and outdoors. The relationship between the complainant's mother and the accused ended in 2000. Later that year she commenced a relationship with another man. In either 2004 or 2005, the complainant moved with his mother into a house in Launceston. The evidence does not establish with certainty when…

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 Tasmania v C

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v C [2017] TASSC 9
Case: [2017] TASSC 9
Decision Date: 13 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v C, the respondent was charged with multiple offences, including sexual offences, against children under the age of 16. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence of prior sexual misconduct by the respondent against other children, arguing it was relevant to show a propensity or tendency to commit such offences. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence under the common law rules of evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of prior sexual misconduct could be admitted to demonstrate the respondent's propensity or tendency to commit the charged offences. The court had to consider the principles established in previous cases, which emphasised the importance of relevance and the need to exclude evidence that could unfairly prejudice the defendant. The court also had to assess whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudicial effect.

The court held that the evidence of prior sexual misconduct was not admissible for the purpose of showing a propensity or tendency to commit the charged offences. The court found that while such evidence might be relevant to establish identity, it did not meet the threshold for admissibility under the propensity rule. The court emphasised that evidence of prior sexual offences is only admissible if it can be shown to have significant probative value in relation to a matter in issue in the proceedings and is not so likely to prejudice the defendant. In this case, the court concluded that the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The court ordered that the evidence of the prior sexual misconduct be excluded from the trial. The trial proceeded without this evidence, focusing on the direct evidence against the respondent.

Orders