R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 3)

In the case of R v Afu; R v Caleo, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of certain evidence in relation to two separate murders. The accused, Afu and Caleo, were each charged with the murder of a close relative. The primary issue before the court was whether evidence of one murder could be used to prove the likelihood of the accused being involved in the other murder. The court also considered whether evidence of the accused's financial pressure in relation to each murder could be admitted to show a common design or tendency.

The High Court held that evidence of one murder could be used to establish the accused's propensity to commit such acts, but it could not be used to prove the accused's involvement in the other murder. The court reasoned that while the circumstances of both killings were similar and indicative of premeditation, the evidence of one murder could not be used as coincidence evidence to establish the accused's guilt in the other case. The court determined that the evidence of the accused's financial pressure in relation to each murder was inadmissible as it did not directly relate to the commission of the crimes. The court also rejected the prosecution's request to sever the counts, ruling that the evidence of each murder was relevant to the other and should be considered together.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the evidence of one murder was admissible to show the accused's propensity to commit such acts, but it could not be used to prove the accused's involvement in the other murder. The evidence of the accused's financial pressure was deemed inadmissible as it did not directly relate to the commission of the crimes. The court refused to sever the counts, allowing the evidence of both murders to be considered together in the trial.