Latu v R

In the case of Latu v R, the applicant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his intimate domestic partner. The applicant was found guilty by a jury and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and providing a direction to the jury regarding that evidence. Specifically, the appeal centred on the admission of tendency and relationship evidence, and the failure to provide an anti-tendency direction concerning the relationship evidence. The applicant argued that the trial judge should have excluded the evidence due to the risk of unfair prejudice and impermissible tendency reasoning. The court examined whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to disregard the relationship evidence or given an anti-tendency direction in relation to it.

The court found that the risk of impermissible tendency reasoning was minimal, given that there were legitimate forensic explanations available to the jury that did not rely on the impermissible reasoning. The court also noted that the experienced senior counsel for the accused did not seek an anti-tendency direction concerning the relationship evidence. The court held that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence or failing to give an anti-tendency direction. Consequently, the court applied rule 4.15 of the relevant rules of court and refused the applicant leave to appeal against his conviction.