R v Fesus (No 4)

The appellant, Fesus, was convicted of murder. The case against him included evidence of threats made by Fesus against the deceased, which occurred years before the murder. The trial judge excluded this evidence, deeming it too prejudicial and irrelevant. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, and the case was heard by the High Court. The issue before the court was whether the evidence of past threats was admissible, considering its prejudicial nature and potential to cause an undue waste of time. The court considered the relevance of the evidence in establishing a motive or state of mind, and whether it would unduly prejudice the Crown.

The court found that the evidence of past threats was relevant to establishing the appellant's motive and state of mind at the time of the murder. The court held that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence, as it was relevant to the case and did not unduly prejudice the Crown or waste the court's time. The court noted that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the probative value of the evidence, and that the prejudicial effect could be managed through appropriate directions to the jury. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

The High Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the relevance and probative value of evidence, even if it may be prejudicial. The court emphasised that the trial judge must strike a balance between the probative value of the evidence and its potential prejudicial effect. The court also noted that the prejudicial effect of evidence can be managed through appropriate directions to the jury. This case serves as a reminder to trial judges to carefully consider the admissibility of evidence, even if it may be prejudicial, and to give appropriate weight to its relevance and probative value.