R v Bennetts

The case of R v Bennetts involved the applicant, who was charged with one count of murder and one count of interfering with a corpse. The applicant had previously entered a plea to manslaughter, which was not accepted by the Crown. The applicant sought to exclude evidence of a YouTube search conducted one day before the deceased's death. The search query was "best way to dispose of a body." The results of the search were unknown, and the applicant argued that the evidence was not relevant and should be excluded. The Crown contended that the search was relevant and that the applicant’s plea of manslaughter did not satisfy the indictment.

The court had to determine whether the evidence of the YouTube search was relevant and whether its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The court also needed to decide whether there was a special reason to re-open the ruling on the admissibility of Facebook messages between the defendant and Ms Gilmore on 13 August 2015, which the Crown sought to use to contextualise the YouTube search. The court considered the nature of the discretion to admit or exclude evidence and the balance between prejudice and probative value. The court concluded that the YouTube search was relevant and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court found that there was a special reason to re-open the ruling on the admissibility of the Facebook messages as they provided context for the YouTube search.

The court refused the application to exclude the evidence of the YouTube search. The court granted the Crown’s application to re-open the ruling on the admissibility of the Facebook messages, finding that they contextualised the YouTube search and were therefore relevant. The Facebook messages were admitted as evidence. The court's decision underscored the importance of context in assessing the admissibility of evidence and the role of judicial discretion in balancing probative value against potential prejudice.