Karlsson v The King

The appellant, Karlsson, appealed a decision that had found him guilty of a number of drug-related offences. The primary judge had considered evidence of prior convictions that were not admitted for the truth of the facts contained in them, but to prove a propensity to commit the current offences. Karlsson contended that the evidence of the prior convictions should not have been admitted as it was not relevant to the current charges. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal.

The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the prior convictions was properly admitted and whether there was a causal connection between the identified contravention or impropriety and the evidence. The court had to determine whether the trial judge was correct in his application of section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The appellant argued that the evidence was not relevant as there was no causal connection between the prior convictions and the current offences.

The court found that the trial judge had applied the correct test in admitting the evidence. The court held that a causal connection was established if the evidence of the prior convictions created an objective expectation that the appellant would commit the current offences. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the “but for” test was the only test to be applied. The court held that the outer limit of the “but for” enquiry was whether there was an objective expectation of subsequent offending that was the subject of the evidence. The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence as it created an objective expectation that the appellant would commit the current offences.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld. The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence of the prior convictions and that there was a causal connection between the identified contravention or impropriety and the evidence. The court held that the objective expectation of subsequent offending was the outer limit of the “but for” enquiry and that the trial judge had applied the correct test in admitting the evidence.