R v Smiler (No 2)

The case of R v Smiler (No 2) involves the accused, Robert Smiler, facing charges of aggravated assault on Peter Doucas and unlawfully causing serious harm to Edward Aden. Smiler seeks to introduce evidence of prior violent incidents involving Aden, both as tendency evidence and evidence of Aden's character or disposition. The Crown opposes this evidence. The court must decide whether this evidence is admissible under the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT), particularly considering its relevance to the fact in issue and its probative value against any prejudicial effect.

The legal issues at hand revolve around the admissibility and relevance of the proposed evidence. Specifically, the court must determine if the evidence of Aden’s prior violent acts can be used to establish a tendency to resort to serious violence and if such evidence has significant probative value. The court must also consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect, and if there is a risk of undue waste of time or unfair prejudice to the Crown. Furthermore, the court must assess whether the discretion to exclude evidence under section 97 should be exercised.

The court found that the evidence was capable of proving the alleged tendency, even though it was not overwhelming, because it could rationally affect the jury's assessment of whether Smiler was acting in self-defence. The court concluded that the evidence had significant probative value, as the degree of violence used by Aden against Smiler was relevant to the issue of self-defence. The court determined that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, and there was no undue waste of time. Therefore, the court held that the evidence should be admitted, and the discretion to exclude was not exercised. The court found that the evidence was relevant and admissible, thereby permitting Smiler to present it to the jury.

The final orders of the court allowed Smiler to introduce the evidence of Aden’s prior violent acts to establish a tendency to resort to serious violence, which the jury could consider in determining whether Smiler was acting in self-defence. The court’s decision balanced the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effect, ultimately concluding that the evidence should be admitted under the relevant provisions of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT).