R v Grant

In the case of R v Grant, the defendant was charged with unlawfully causing harm and unlawfully causing serious harm to the complainant. The defendant pleaded guilty to causing harm by punching the complainant but denied causing serious harm through strangulation or other violent acts. The case hinged on the cause of the complainant's injuries, particularly whether they resulted from the defendant's actions or the complainant's alleged suicide attempt. The trial court had to decide whether certain propensity and relationship evidence could be admitted under the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (ENULA).

The court had to determine if the propensity evidence, showing the defendant's history of violent and abusive behaviour, could be admitted. Under section 101 of the ENULA, such evidence is admissible if its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. The court found that the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the facts in issue, particularly in refuting the defence's claim that the complainant's injuries were self-inflicted. The probative value of the evidence was deemed high because it could significantly undermine the defence's case. The risk of prejudice was considered manageable with appropriate jury directions.

Additionally, the court examined whether relationship evidence, showing prior incidents of violence by the defendant against the complainant, was admissible. Under section 97 of the ENULA, such evidence could be admitted if it made the complainant's account more believable in the context of their relationship and if it was necessary to avoid misunderstanding the alleged offence. The court held that this evidence had high probative value in negating the defence of self-inflicted injury and that any prejudicial effect could be mitigated with suitable directions to the jury. Consequently, the relationship evidence was deemed admissible.

The court concluded that both the propensity and relationship evidence met the admissibility criteria under the ENULA. The probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect, and it was necessary to present a complete picture of the relationship and the events leading to the complainant's injuries. The evidence was therefore allowed to be presented to the jury.