R v HG; R v We (No 3)

The case of R v HG; R v We (No 3) involved two accused persons, HG and We, who were charged with offences related to their alleged preparation for committing terrorist acts. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's refusal to stand for the National Anthem at a school assembly, as well as their absence from school on days when the National Anthem was played. The accused objected to the admission of this evidence, arguing that it was irrelevant and would unfairly prejudice the jury against them. The court was required to determine the relevance and admissibility of this evidence in the context of the Crown's circumstantial case against the accused.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the evidence of the accused's refusal to stand for the National Anthem and their absences from school on such days was relevant to their intention and ideology, and whether the probative value of this evidence outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. The court considered the Crown's case to be circumstantial and therefore had to consider the evidence as a whole to assess its admissibility. The court held that the evidence was relevant to the accused's ideology and intention, and that there was no danger of unfair prejudice in the sense of possible misuse by the jury. The evidence was therefore admitted.

The court found that the evidence of the accused's refusal to stand for the National Anthem and their absences from school on such days was relevant to their intention and ideology, and that the probative value of this evidence outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted as part of the Crown's circumstantial case against the accused. The final orders of the court were not provided in the text.