Pattison v Tasmania

The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence presented at trial against the appellant, Mr. Pattison. The dispute centred on whether evidence of the appellant's interest in specialised fly-fishing equipment and his possession of stolen fishing equipment constituted inadmissible tendency evidence under the uniform evidence law. The matter was heard by Wood, Pearce, and Brett JJ of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence in question as tendency evidence. This involved determining whether the evidence was correctly characterised as tending to prove that the appellant had a propensity to act in a particular way or possess a particular state of mind, as defined by section 97 of the uniform evidence law. The court also considered whether, if it were tendency evidence, it would have met the admissibility requirements under sections 97(1) and 101.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the evidence of the appellant's interest in specialised fly-fishing equipment and his possession of stolen fishing equipment was not tendency evidence. The court reasoned that this evidence was direct evidence of the appellant's actual conduct and actual state of mind at the relevant time, rather than evidence of a general tendency. The relevance of the evidence lay in its direct connection to the facts in issue, not in its capacity to suggest a propensity. The court distinguished this type of evidence from tendency evidence, which is led to establish a person's disposition to act in a certain way. The court concluded that the trial judge had incorrectly characterised the evidence as tendency evidence, and that its admission carried a risk of impermissible reasoning due to its lack of significant probative value when viewed through the lens of tendency.