The Director of Public Prosecutions v DL

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against a ruling made by a judge in a criminal proceeding. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically tendency evidence, and how its prejudicial effect should be assessed under the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT).

The central legal issue before the Court was the proper interpretation of section 101(2) of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT). This provision requires that tendency evidence be admitted only if its probative value substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant. The Court had to determine whether, in assessing this balance, it was permissible to consider the potential impact of admitting the evidence on the defendant in *other* proceedings, beyond the immediate proceeding in which the evidence was being tendered.

The Court reasoned that the phrase "prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant" in section 101(2) refers exclusively to the prejudicial effect on the defendant in the *current* proceeding. The Court held that it is not permissible to consider the effect that the use of tendency evidence against the defendant in one proceeding might have on the defendant in other, separate proceedings when undertaking the balancing exercise required by the section. This interpretation focuses the assessment on the fairness of the trial in the immediate context.

The Court allowed the DPP's appeal, setting aside the original ruling.