Director of Public Prosecutions v Tan (Ruling No 2)

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Tan (Ruling No 2) involved the prosecution seeking to introduce evidence of post-offence conduct to establish not only the accused's culpability in the murder but also to prove the requisite murderous intent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution argued that the accused's conduct after the alleged murder, such as fleeing the scene and disposing of evidence, was indicative of premeditation and intent to kill.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution could rely on such post-offence conduct to establish the element of murderous intent and whether this evidence was sufficiently probative to be admissible. The court needed to balance the probative value of this evidence against any prejudicial effects it might have on the jury. The court was also required to consider the statutory guidance provided by the Jury Directions Act 2015, which mandates that evidence must have sufficient probative value to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

The court, in its ruling, held that the post-offence conduct could be considered probative of the accused's intent to kill. The court found that such conduct, particularly when viewed in the context of other evidence, could assist in establishing the requisite intent to murder. The court noted that while the evidence might have prejudicial effects, its probative value outweighed these concerns. The court referred to previous cases such as DPP v Ristevski (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 165, R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26, and The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 to support its findings. The court concluded that the evidence was not 'intractably neutral' and thus admissible.

In its final orders, the court ruled that the prosecution could rely on the evidence of the accused's post-offence conduct to prove the element of murderous intent. The court emphasised that the trial judge would need to carefully instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which this evidence could be considered and to weigh it appropriately in the context of the overall case.