R v Johnson (No 2)

The case of R v Johnson (No 2) arose in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Johnson, was convicted of murder and was subject to a sentence of life imprisonment. The central issue in this appeal was the admissibility of certain tendency evidence that was presented during Johnson's trial. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence of previous violent conduct by Johnson to demonstrate a propensity towards violent behaviour. The trial judge excluded the tendered evidence, but the High Court was asked to consider the correctness of this decision.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in excluding the tendency evidence. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the events presented by the prosecution were sufficiently similar to establish a propensity and if the time gap between the events was too great to allow for a tendency inference. Additionally, the Court had to examine whether the evidence had significant probative value as required by the common law rules of evidence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence. The Court held that the events did have a sufficient degree of similarity to establish a propensity, despite the extended time gap between them. The Court further held that the evidence did possess significant probative value in demonstrating Johnson's propensity towards violent conduct. The High Court noted that while the time between the events was lengthy, it was not necessarily a bar to admitting tendency evidence, provided other factors supported the admissibility. The Court concluded that the exclusion of the evidence was an error that warranted a new trial.