R v Dupas (No 2)

In the case of R v Dupas (No 2), the accused, Dupas, faced charges of murder and mutilation of a woman, the victim of the current proceedings. The body of the deceased was found mutilated, and Dupas was subsequently charged. The dispute in this case centred on the admissibility of evidence relating to a similar offence committed by Dupas 18 months after the offence in question. The Victorian Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether this evidence was admissible and if its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. The court was also required to consider whether the evidence demonstrated a "striking similarity" to the offence charged and whether the directions given to the jury regarding causation were adequate.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of similar fact evidence under section 398A of the Crimes Act 1958, and the application of the "Christie" discretion in balancing the probative value against the prejudicial effect. The court needed to assess whether the evidence of the later murder and mutilation revealed a "striking similarity" that would make it unfair to exclude it, and whether the jury had been adequately directed on the issue of causation. The court also had to determine if the prejudicial effect of the evidence would substantially outweigh its probative value.

The court concluded that the evidence of the later murder and mutilation was admissible. It found that the later offence demonstrated a striking similarity to the offence charged, which made it unfair to exclude. The court determined that the probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, and thus, it was appropriate to admit it. The court further held that the directions given to the jury regarding causation were adequate, ensuring that the jury could properly consider the evidence in relation to the current charges. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence was properly admitted and considered within the parameters of the law.

No additional orders were made beyond the affirmation of the conviction and the reasoning provided by the court. The court's decision provided clarity on the admissibility of similar fact evidence in cases involving striking similarities and the appropriate application of the "Christie" discretion.