The Queen v Majak

The matter before the court in The Queen v Majak involved the accused, Majak, who was facing charges of aggravated unlawful assault causing harm. The complainant alleged that Majak assaulted her, and a bystander had witnessed the incident and reported it to the police. Majak denied the charges, and the case was set to be heard in the Local Court. The defence sought to adduce evidence from witnesses involved in a separate complaint made by the complainant against another individual, MA, as tendency evidence in Majak's trial. This included evidence from the complainant, MA, and other witnesses who could provide relevant evidence about the events of the MA complaint.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proposed evidence from the MA complaint could be admitted as tendency evidence under the Evidence Act, and whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the potential prejudice or waste of time. The court also had to consider whether the evidence had significant probative value as evidence of fact and whether it was necessary to recall the complainant for cross-examination regarding hearsay evidence that she was 'setting up' the accused.

The court found that the proposed evidence from the MA complaint was not admissible as tendency evidence because it was credibility evidence, not tendency evidence. Even if it was considered tendency evidence, it did not have significant probative value. The court also found that the evidence had significant probative value as evidence of fact but had no additional probative value as tendency evidence. The court held that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue waste of time and would be refused under s 135 of the Evidence Act. The court further held that the complainant should be re-called for cross-examination regarding the hearsay representation that she was 'setting up' the accused.

The final orders of the court were that the proposed tendency evidence from the MA complaint was not admissible, and the complainant should be re-called for cross-examination regarding the hearsay representation that she was 'setting up' the accused. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the probative value and potential prejudice of evidence when deciding whether to admit it in a criminal trial.