KJM v The Queen

In the matter of KJM versus The Queen, the appellant sought an interlocutory appeal against a ruling made by the trial judge in a murder case. The appellant, who was charged with the murder of their domestic partner, raised the defence of self-defence. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge's preliminary ruling on the admissibility of evidence concerning the appellant's alleged history of violence against a former partner was correct. This evidence was proposed to be used by the prosecution as tendency evidence. The appellant argued that the evidence should be excluded on the basis that it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The court was required to determine the appropriate legal framework for assessing the admissibility of tendency evidence in the context of self-defence claims. The court considered the principles established in previous cases, such as R v Morgan and R v Rowney, which set out the criteria for determining the admissibility of tendency evidence. The court also examined whether the trial judge's preliminary ruling on admissibility was premature, given that the evidence had not yet been tested and the defence intended to challenge its admissibility on voir dire.

The court found that the trial judge's preliminary ruling on the admissibility of the tendency evidence was indeed premature. The court held that the trial judge should not have made a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence without conducting a voir dire, as the defence intended to challenge the admissibility of the evidence on voir dire. The court emphasised that the trial judge's role was to make a final decision on the admissibility of the evidence only after it had been tested and the parties had had an opportunity to present their arguments. The court held that the appeal was premature as the evidence had not yet been tested and the trial judge had not made a final decision on the admissibility of the evidence. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the application was premature.