R v Kesisyan

In the matter of R v Kesisyan, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault with intent to commit an indictable offence, and affray. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the defendant's credibility, particularly in relation to his past conduct and character. The defendant argued that the evidence was inadmissible as it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution's evidence concerning the defendant's previous conduct and character was admissible under the rules of evidence, specifically focusing on the principles outlined in Longman directions. The primary legal issue was whether the evidence was relevant to the defendant's credibility and whether it could be properly admitted to assist the jury in assessing the truth of the prosecution's case. The court also needed to consider the form and content of the evidence, and whether any specific form of words was required for its admissibility.

The Supreme Court held that the evidence in question was relevant to the defendant's credibility and was therefore admissible. The court found that there was no requirement for a specific form of words to be used in relation to Longman directions, and that the evidence could be properly considered by the jury in assessing the defendant's credibility. The court emphasised that the evidence was not being admitted to prove the defendant's propensity to commit crime, but rather to assist in determining the truth of the prosecution's case. The court further held that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial, and that its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendant.

The court's decision upheld the admissibility of the prosecution's evidence concerning the defendant's credibility, character, and past conduct. The jury was able to consider this evidence in reaching their verdict. The final orders of the court were not specified in the text, but it is likely that the trial proceeded with the jury considering all relevant evidence, including the contested credibility evidence.