R v Jacobs (No 5)

In the case of R v Jacobs (No 5), the respondent, Jacobs, sought an advanced ruling under section 192A of the Evidence Act in relation to the proposed cross-examination of a Crown witness, who had been convicted of manslaughter, regarding past offences. The respondent also sought to adduce evidence of his own tendency to verbally threaten people with firearms. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence under the provisions of the Evidence Act.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the evidence in question had significant probative value and whether it could be admitted under the relevant sections of the Evidence Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence of the Crown witness's past conviction and the remarks made at sentencing could be admitted as tendency evidence under section 97, and whether the probative value of the respondent's evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect under section 137. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the facts in the remarks on sentence were admissible under section 91 of the Evidence Act.

The court ruled that the evidence of the Crown witness's past conviction of manslaughter was admissible as tendency evidence under section 97 of the Evidence Act, as it had significant probative value in establishing a propensity to act violently. Furthermore, the undisputed facts found in the remarks on sentence were also admissible under section 91. The court found no adverse credibility consequences for the witness. However, the court found that the evidence of the respondent's tendency to verbally threaten people with firearms was inadmissible under the Evidence Act. The court held that the probative value of this evidence did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence of the Crown witness's past conviction and the remarks on sentence were admissible, while the evidence of the respondent's tendency to verbally threaten people with firearms was inadmissible.