Taylor v R

[2020] NSWCCA 355

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Unreasonable verdict
5. › Whether verdict unreasonable where no evidence of means of access to premises
6. › Whether rational inference available to support Crown case
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 111(2)
1. Evidence
2. › Tendency evidence
3. › Significant probative value
4. › Temporal gap between tendency conduct and charged offences
5. › Whether nine-year gap undermines significant probative value
6. › Relevance of absence of intervening relationships
7. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 101(2)
1. Evidence
2. › Tendency evidence
3. › Prejudicial effect
4. › Whether probative value substantially outweighs prejudicial effect
5. › Emotional response of jury to violent tendency evidence
6. › Ameliorative effect of judicial directions
7. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 101(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Aggregate sentences
4. › Resentencing following acquittal on one count of aggregate sentence
5. › Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 53A(2)(c)

Quick Take

A nine-year gap between tendency conduct and charged offences does not necessarily deprive tendency evidence of significant probative value where the alleged tendency is relationship-specific (violence towards intimate partners) and there is no evidence of intervening relationships in which the tendency could have manifested. The significance of temporal gaps must be assessed in context of the specific tendency alleged. Bell P's 28-point summary of tendency evidence principles at [122] provides a comprehensive practitioner reference for tendency evidence admissibility under ss 97 and 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).