R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 5)

The appellants, Afu and Caleo, were convicted of various charges including armed robbery and were sentenced to lengthy prison terms. The primary issue in the appeal was the admissibility of expert evidence regarding a scar on Afu's hand, which the prosecution argued was consistent with injuries sustained during the commission of the crime. The court was tasked with determining whether the expert evidence could be considered by the jury and whether its admission risked the jury making an improper use of the evidence. The appeal hinged on the principles of relevance and the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence on the jury's decision-making process.

The court examined the relevance of the expert evidence in relation to the charges against the appellants. It considered whether the scar evidence could logically assist in proving or disproving a material fact in issue. The court found that the evidence did not directly link the scar to the offence in a manner that would assist the jury in resolving the dispute. Additionally, the court was concerned that the jury might improperly use the evidence, by considering it as direct evidence of guilt rather than in the limited context intended. Given these concerns, the court ruled that the risk of improper use outweighed the probative value of the evidence, leading to its exclusion from the trial.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent that the expert evidence was deemed inadmissible. The court concluded that the trial judge should not have admitted the evidence concerning the scar on Afu's hand. The findings led to a re-evaluation of the appellants' convictions, with the court ordering a retrial where the inadmissible evidence would not be considered. The outcome underscored the importance of ensuring that expert evidence is both relevant and not prejudicial, and that juries are properly guided in its use.