R v De Villiers

In the case of R v De Villiers, the appellant, Alexander De Villiers, faced a trial on eight counts related to sexual offences against two complainants. The first complainant, J C, alleged an indecent assault under section 135 of the Crimes Act 1961, while the second complainant, M B, faced four counts under section 135, two counts of sexual violation, and one count under section 208(b) of unlawful detention with intent to have sexual connection. De Villiers sought a severance of the first count relating to J C, arguing that a joint trial would be prejudicial, outweighing the probative value of the evidence. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the counts should be tried together due to the similar fact evidence involved.

The District Court judge, Judge Rollo, declined the severance application, finding that the probative value of the evidence was sufficiently strong to outweigh any prejudicial effect. De Villiers appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal centred on whether the common features of the complainants' evidence were relevant and probative enough to justify a joint trial. The Court of Appeal concluded that the common theme of the appellant approaching male complainants in public places, offering them jobs and accommodation, and taking them to his home was distinctive and would help a jury assess the credibility issues at trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of Judge Rollo was upheld.