R v Snounou (No 2)

The case of R v Snounou (No 2) involved the respondent, Snounou, who was on trial for various drug-related offences. The court had to determine the admissibility of certain evidence pertaining to Snounou's alleged involvement in the acquisition and on-supply of precursor drugs intended for the manufacture of prohibited drugs. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the Honourable Justice Kaye presiding.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the admissibility of tendency evidence, specifically whether the evidence of Snounou's alleged use of a chemical company to facilitate the acquisition of substances for illicit purposes and his intent to supply these substances to others involved in drug manufacturing was relevant and admissible. The court had to weigh the probative value of such evidence against its potential prejudicial effect.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Kaye determined that the evidence in question lacked sufficient probative value to be admitted. The judge reasoned that the evidence did not clearly link Snounou to the specific acts of acquiring and supplying precursor drugs for illicit drug manufacturing. Furthermore, the potential prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence outweighed its limited probative value. Consequently, the evidence was excluded from the trial.

The court's final orders, as outlined at [32] to [34], were that the evidence in question was rejected due to its lack of probative value and, in the alternative, the slight probative value did not substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect of such evidence. This decision ensured that the trial proceeded without the contested evidence, maintaining a focus on the direct evidence related to the charges against Snounou.