R v Holmes (No 5)

The appellant was charged with the murder of a deceased person. The defence sought to rely on tendency evidence to show that the deceased had a propensity to resort to irrational violence after consuming alcohol. The respondent argued that the defence had failed to serve a notice of intention to adduce tendency evidence within the time specified by section 101(2) of the Evidence Act, and that the Court should not dispense with the notice requirement under section 100(1). The issue for the Court was whether it should allow the defence to rely on tendency evidence in the absence of a notice having been served within the relevant time, and if so, whether the evidence had significant probative value.

The Court found that the defence had not served a notice within the relevant time, but that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion under section 100(1) of the Evidence Act to allow the evidence to be led. The Court noted that the defence had not deliberately or recklessly failed to serve the notice and that there was no possibility of unfair surprise. The Court held that the evidence had significant probative value in showing that the deceased had a tendency to resort to irrational violence after consuming alcohol. The Court also found that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the respondent.

The Court allowed the defence to rely on the tendency evidence. The Court found that the evidence had significant probative value in establishing the deceased's propensity to resort to irrational violence after consuming alcohol. The Court held that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the respondent. The Court concluded that the evidence was admissible and could be considered by the jury in determining the appellant's guilt or innocence.