R v Maiolo

[2011] SASCFC 86

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Joinder of counts
4. › Multiple complainants
5. › Cross-admissibility
6. › Whether evidence of each complainant cross-admissible on counts relating to other complainants
7. › Whether severance required where evidence not cross-admissible
8. › Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 278(2a)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Procedure
3. › Joint or separate trial
4. › Prejudice from joinder
5. › Whether mistrial required where trial proceeded on assumption of cross-admissibility but ruling made that evidence not cross-admissible
6. › Whether jury directions adequate to cure impermissible prejudice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Improper admission or rejection of evidence
5. › Trial proceeding as if evidence cross-admissible when ruled not to be
6. › Whether miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

Where a trial judge rules that evidence is not cross-admissible between complainants in a multi-count sexual offence trial, the only appropriate remedy is a mistrial; jury directions, no matter how complete, cannot cure the impermissible prejudice of multiple complainants having given evidence of sexual impropriety in a joint trial. Cross-admissibility and severance must be resolved before the prosecutor's opening address.

Case Details

Citation[2011] SASCFC 86

CourtSASCFC

JurisdictionSouth Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by1

2019R v R, PaSASCFC 19

Relies on4

2010R v EllisSASC 118
1988Hoch v RHCA 50
1986De Jesus v RHCA 65
1984Sutton v RHCA 5

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in