R v Sultana (No.2)

The case of R v Sultana (No.2) involved the accused, Sultana, who was on trial for offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, deprivation of liberty, and stalking. The court was required to determine the admissibility of certain evidence related to a series of past incidents that the prosecution sought to introduce as both tendency and coincidence evidence. The primary legal issues were whether the evidence of past behaviour demonstrated a tendency towards violent conduct towards women when the accused perceived his relationship with them was deteriorating, and if so, whether the evidence was sufficiently similar to the current charges, not too remote in time, and had significant probative value.

The court examined the nature of the past incidents and their similarity to the current charges, finding that the accused had a history of using violence against women when he perceived a breakdown in his relationship with them. The court also assessed the passage of time between the past incidents and the current charges, concluding that the evidence was not too remote given the consistency in the accused's behaviour over a period of time. The court further held that the evidence was relevant to the substantial issue in the proceedings and could rationally affect the probability of a fact in issue, namely the accused's propensity to commit the current offences. The coincidence evidence, which was inherently linked to the tendency evidence, was also admitted as it was relevant to the circumstances of the offence.

In conclusion, the court held that the evidence was admissible under sections 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as it demonstrated a tendency and coincidence that had significant probative value. The court found that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial and was relevant to the issues in the trial. The accused was ultimately found guilty of the charges, and the evidence played a critical role in the court's decision.