The King v Silver - [2025] NTSC 56

CITATION:The King v Silver [2025] NTSC 56

PARTIES:THE KING

v
SILVER, Leslie

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction

FILE NOs: 22334717 & 22332715

DELIVERED: 8 August 2025

HEARING DATE: 8 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF: Grant CJ

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – Tendency evidence – Conduct – Criminal proceedings – Significant probative value

Two tendency notices – First notice dealing only with charged acts – Evidence mutually admissible – Second notice dealing with both charged acts and prior offending – Tendency on part of accused to engage in physical violence against female intimate partners – Tendency on part of accused to improvise weapons to use against female intimate partners during assaults – Tendency on part of accused to have controlling and violent disposition towards female intimate partners – Evidence capable of supporting tendencies asserted – Tendencies make more likely the facts said to constitute the charged offences – Tendency to engage in violence to exercise control clearly relevant to establishing whether accused exercised physical dominion as alleged – Clearly relevant to whether sexual penetration consensual – Probative value outweighs prejudicial effect – Evidence admissible

Harlen (A Pseudonym) v R [2023] VSCA 269, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel

Applicant: R Everitt
Respondent: G O’Brien-Hartcher

Solicitors

Applicant: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Bryson Kelly Legal

Judgment category classification:     C
Judgment ID Number:                     Gra2507
Number of pages:   11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

The King v Silver [2025] NTSC 56
Nos. 22334717 & 22332715
BETWEEN:
THE KING
Applicant

AND:
LESLIE SILVER
Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ

EDITED REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered ex tempore 8 August 2025)

The accused is charged with aggravated assault alleged to have been committed against the complainant on 10 October 2023, and sexual intercourse without consent, aggravated assault and choking in a domestic relationship alleged to have been committed against the same complainant on 28 October 2023.
The Crown case may be summarised briefly as follows. The accused and the complainant were in an intimate partner relationship at the material time. There was a domestic violence order in force which named the complainant as the protected person and restrained the accused from assaulting her.
On 10 October 2023, the accused became intoxicated, verbally abused the complainant and accused the complainant of sleeping with other men. He then ripped off the complainant’s underwear and punched her three times in the groin. The accused then threatened to stab the complainant with a stick and struck her to the head with a rock. That conduct constituted the aggravated assault offence charged in count 1.
On 28 October 2023, the accused again became intoxicated, verbally abused the complainant and accused the complainant of sleeping with other men. During that abuse the accused began punching and kicking the complainant. The accused then forcibly removed all the complainant’s clothing, pulled her to the ground and beat her with a stick. While on top of the complainant the accused forcibly inserted…

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 The King v Silver

Details

AGLC: The King v Silver [2025] NTSC 56
Case: [2025] NTSC 56
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory heard a case brought by the King against Leslie Silver, who is accused of multiple charges including aggravated assault, sexual intercourse without consent, and choking in a domestic relationship. The alleged incidents occurred on 10 October 2023 and 28 October 2023, during which the accused and the complainant were in an intimate partner relationship. The Crown seeks to adduce tendency evidence under the principles established in previous case law, aiming to demonstrate a pattern of violent and controlling behaviour by the accused towards his intimate partners. The Crown’s first notice relates solely to the charged acts, while the second notice includes both the charged acts and prior assaults on a former intimate partner.

The court was required to determine the admissibility of the tendered tendency evidence under established legal principles. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the evidence was capable of supporting the tendencies asserted by the Crown, and whether those tendencies would make more likely the facts said to constitute the charged offences. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have.

In its judgment, the court found that the evidence was capable of supporting the tendencies asserted by the Crown. The number and nature of the incidents, including the use of improvised weapons and the violent disposition of the accused, sufficiently established a pattern of violent behaviour towards intimate partners. The court also concluded that these tendencies were relevant to the charged offences, particularly in establishing whether the accused exercised physical dominion over the complainant and whether the sexual penetration was consensual. The court accepted that while the charged offences and prior acts might not be identical, they were sufficiently similar to warrant the admission of tendency evidence. The probative value of the evidence was deemed to outweigh any prejudicial effect, especially when considering the nature of the charged offences and the likelihood that they were part of the same episode of violence.

In summary, the court ruled that the evidence identified in the Crown’s tendency notice dated 1 August 2025 was mutually admissible for tendency purposes, and that the evidence identified in the Crown’s tendency notice dated 7 August 2025 was also admissible for tendency purposes.

Orders