KJM v The Queen (No 2)

In the case of KJM v The Queen, the appellant, KJM, was appealing against a ruling made by the County Court of Victoria in relation to the admissibility of evidence of alleged past violence against a former partner. This evidence was sought to be introduced in the context of a murder trial where the accused was defending himself on the basis of self-defence against his domestic partner, the deceased. The central issue in this interlocutory appeal was whether this past evidence was admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), specifically sections 97 and 101, which deal with the admissibility of evidence of a person’s character or past conduct.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence of the appellant's past violence could be admitted as 'tendency evidence' to show a propensity to violence, and if so, whether it could rebut the self-defence plea. The appellant argued that the evidence was not relevant to the current charges and that its admission would unfairly prejudice the jury against him. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the evidence was relevant to show the appellant's state of mind and the context in which the offence occurred. The court carefully considered the statutory provisions and the principles of relevance and fairness in assessing the admissibility of the evidence.

In allowing the appeal in part, the court found that the evidence of the appellant's past violence was indeed relevant to the issue of self-defence and could be admitted to rebut the plea. However, the court also recognised the potential for prejudice and imposed strict guidelines to ensure the evidence was presented in a manner that did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. The court concluded that while the evidence was admissible, its presentation must be tightly controlled to avoid undue prejudice. This nuanced approach balanced the probative value of the evidence against the risk of prejudice, ultimately leading to the partial allowance of the appeal. The court's decision provided clarity on the admissibility of tendency evidence in the context of self-defence pleas, highlighting the importance of a careful and controlled approach to such evidence.