Sen v The Queen

In *Sen v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Sen, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial and the subsequent directions given to the jury.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of that evidence were adequate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence of prior convictions was relevant to the issue of identity or propensity, and if its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

McHugh and Gummow JJ, in their joint judgment, analysed the principles governing the admission of evidence of prior convictions. They affirmed that such evidence is generally inadmissible to prove a person's propensity to commit a crime. However, they noted that it may be admissible if it has a specific relevance to an issue in the case, such as identity, and that its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect. The court found that the evidence of prior convictions in this instance was admitted without sufficient consideration of its relevance and without adequate directions to the jury on how it could be used, thereby creating a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.