The Queen v Nudjulu

In the case of The Queen v Nudjulu, the respondent was charged with the murder of the complainant. The respondent was convicted by a jury and subsequently appealed against his conviction on various grounds. One of the grounds of appeal related to the admissibility of certain evidence. The complainant had a history of violence in arguments and a tendency to readily develop anger and aggression. The respondent sought to introduce evidence of this history to suggest a tendency of the complainant to act with violence in arguments and to readily develop anger and aggression. The trial judge ruled that the evidence was not capable of proving an alleged tendency and was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The respondent appealed against this ruling. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the evidence of the complainant's history of violence and aggression was capable of proving an alleged tendency and whether the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the evidence was capable of proving an alleged tendency and that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The Court of Criminal Appeal also held that the requirement of reasonable notice did not apply in this case as the respondent had given notice of the evidence in a timely manner. The respondent's appeal against the trial judge's ruling was allowed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the evidence was capable of proving an alleged tendency because it showed a pattern of behaviour that was relevant to the issues in the case. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the evidence was necessary to establish the respondent's defence. The Court of Criminal Appeal also held that the requirement of reasonable notice did not apply in this case as the respondent had given notice of the evidence in a timely manner. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal against the trial judge's ruling and remitted the case to the trial court for a new trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal made no orders as to costs. The respondent's appeal against his conviction was dismissed on other grounds.