R v Ambrosius

The appeal was brought by the respondent, the Crown, against a decision of the primary judge to exclude certain evidence on the basis that it did not have significant probative value. The appellant was convicted of murder, and the deceased was a man known to the appellant. The deceased had made threats towards the appellant on the day of the murder and the day before. The Crown sought to introduce evidence that the deceased was known to be non-aggressive and did not have a propensity to violence. The primary judge excluded this evidence, holding that it did not have significant probative value.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge was correct in his assessment that the evidence did not have significant probative value, and whether the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The court noted that the evidence was relevant to the question of whether the appellant was acting in self-defence. The court also noted that the primary judge had not considered the evidence in the context of the whole case and had not given sufficient weight to the probative value of the evidence. The court held that the primary judge was incorrect in his assessment and that the evidence had significant probative value.

The court further held that the danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. The court noted that the evidence was not of a kind that would excite the jury's emotions or prejudices and that the jury would be capable of properly directing their attention to the probative value of the evidence. The court held that the primary judge should have admitted the evidence and quashed the appellant's conviction and ordered a retrial.

The court did not make any further orders. The conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered. The court held that the primary judge's exclusion of the evidence was an error of law, and the evidence should have been admitted. The court held that the evidence had significant probative value and that the danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. The court held that the primary judge should have admitted the evidence and quashed the appellant's conviction and ordered a retrial.