R v Evans (No 2)

In this case, the respondent, Evans, was convicted of the murder of a woman, and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant, the Crown, sought to appeal the decision on the basis that the trial judge should have admitted evidence of Evans's drug use, specifically methamphetamine, also known as "ice". The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of Evans's drug use under s 137 of the Evidence Act, which provides that evidence of a person's bad character is not admissible to prove that they acted in accordance with that character, but may be admissible for another purpose. The Court was required to determine whether the evidence of Evans's drug use was highly relevant to establish motive and therefore admissible, or whether it was more prejudicial than probative.

The Court found that the evidence of Evans's drug use was highly relevant to establish motive, as it demonstrated a strong incentive for the murder. The Court noted that the prejudice that may arise from the admission of such evidence can be averted through appropriate jury directions. The Court held that the trial judge should have admitted the evidence of Evans's drug use, as it was highly relevant to the motive for the murder, and the prejudice that may arise from its admission could be managed through appropriate jury directions. The Court held that the exclusion of this evidence was a significant error that had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial, and therefore granted the appeal.

The Court ordered that the conviction and sentence of the respondent be quashed, and that a retrial be conducted. The Court emphasised that the trial judge should provide appropriate jury directions to manage any potential prejudice that may arise from the admission of evidence of Evans's drug use. The Court further noted that the evidence of Evans's drug use was highly relevant to the case, and should have been admitted to establish motive. The Court's decision highlights the importance of considering the relevance and probative value of evidence when determining its admissibility, and the potential for managing any prejudice that may arise through appropriate jury directions.