R v Tarantino (No 2)

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal against conviction in the case of R v Tarantino (No 2). The appellant had been convicted of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one count of threatening to kill. The appellant's conviction and sentence were appealed on the basis that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of an earlier assault and threat, which the appellant claimed was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant to the charges against him. The Crown argued that the evidence was relevant to demonstrate the appellant's consciousness of guilt.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence of the earlier assault and threat was relevant to the charges against the appellant, and whether it was unfairly prejudicial. The court considered whether the evidence was relevant to the appellant's consciousness of guilt, and whether it was necessary to prove an element of the offence. The court also considered whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had.

The court found that the evidence of the earlier assault and threat was relevant to the appellant's consciousness of guilt, and was therefore admissible. The court held that the evidence was necessary to prove an element of the offence, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had. The court further found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the relevance and weight to be given to the evidence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders as the appeal against conviction was dismissed.