The Queen v Degnan - [2000] NZCA 321

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA347/00

THE QUEEN

RALPH DEGNAN

Hearing:	11 October 2000
Coram:	Thomas J Keith J Blanchard J Tipping J McGrath J
Appearances:	A R Laurenson for Applicant J C Pike and T C Brewer for Crown
Judgment:	13 November 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY TIPPING J

Introduction

This application for leave to appeal a pre trial ruling raises an aspect of the law relating to similar fact evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing we indicated the application for leave would be granted but the appeal itself would be dismissed for reasons to be given later. The first question is whether similar fact evidence may be called by the Crown when the accused has been acquitted of an earlier charge based on that evidence. The second and related question is the same, save that instead of an acquittal there has been a stay of proceedings on the earlier charge.
The applicant is charged with indecent assault. The Crown alleges that he met the present complainant, a 29 year old man, in a restaurant at which he, the applicant, worked. The applicant invited the complainant back to his house for the night, and offered to allow him to sleep in his bed. While the complainant was asleep the applicant is said to have got into the bed and indecently touched the complainant on his genitals. The applicant accepts he invited the complainant home and invited him to sleep in his bed, but denies that he got into bed and indecently touched the complainant. The Crown wishes to call evidence at the applicant's trial from two other young men who say they had very similar experiences. It is accepted that the similarities are such that, but for the points to be discussed, the evidence of the earlier complainants would qualify for admission as similar fact evidence. Indeed there is a high correspondence in the details of all three complaints and there is no suggestion of any collusion between the three young men.
In 1997 the applicant was charged with indecent assault on the basis of the first man's allegations. He was acquitted at a summary trial. In 1999 he was charged with indecent assault on the basis of the second man's very similar allegations. This time he elected trial by jury. The Crown did not seek to call evidence from the first man. A stay was entered after two juries had failed to agree. The present issue is whether the Crown can call the first and second men at the trial to support the present complainant's allegations.

District Court decision

In the District Court the Judge noted Mr Laurenson's acceptance that, but for the acquittal and stay points, the evidence of the other men would be admissible on conventional similar fact principles. His Honour then said:
Evidence relating to a previous charge, where there has been an acquittal, is permissible as a matter of discretion and depending on fairness, although…

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 Queen v Degnan

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Degnan [2000] NZCA 321
Case: [2000] NZCA 321
Decision Date: 13 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Ralph Degnan, the applicant was charged with indecent assault, and the Crown sought to call similar fact evidence from two other complainants who had previously accused the applicant of similar acts. The District Court had admitted the evidence, and the applicant sought leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal considered whether similar fact evidence could be admitted following an acquittal or a stay of proceedings on the earlier charge. The Court concluded that such evidence was admissible at law, subject to a discretion to exclude it if its admission would be unfair to the accused or would otherwise result in an abuse of process. The Court rejected the applicant's argument that evidence following an acquittal or stay should be inadmissible as a matter of law, finding no basis in principle or policy to support such a rule. The Court emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of those previously acquitted with the interests of society in having all relevant evidence before the Court when someone is prosecuted for a crime. The Court held that the evidence in question was admissible, subject to the discretion of the Court to exclude it if its admission would be unfair to the applicant or would otherwise result in an abuse of process. The Court found no unfairness or abuse of process in this case and upheld the decision of the District Court to admit the evidence.

Orders