R v Kingi CA259/06

This appeal arose from a pre-trial ruling of Wild J, where the appellant faces a third trial for the manslaughter of his uncle. The appellant objected to the Crown's call of evidence of an alleged assault by the appellant ten days prior to the victim's death. The appellant argued that the evidence was propensity evidence of little probative value, which may occasion significant prejudice to him, and the Judge was thereby wrong to admit the evidence. The court needed to determine the admissibility of the evidence and whether the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court found that evidence of the attack on the two men was highly prejudicial to the appellant's case without any sufficient corresponding probative value. The Crown was entitled to establish the appellant's background, including his fighting ability and power through witnesses, including his trainer. This gave a relevant context to self-defence. However, the evidence of the prior assaults added little more than prejudice and invited the jury to conclude that, because the appellant had on previous occasions without warning punched and knocked unconscious two men, he was more likely to have illegitimately done so on this occasion. The court held that the Crown was entitled to lead from Mr Jones his claim that he imminently warned the appellant of the dangers of punching lay persons.

The appeal was allowed in part. The Crown is prohibited from calling evidence of the appellant's claim to have knocked out two men 10 days prior to the victim's death. However, the Crown is entitled to lead evidence that the appellant was imminently warned of the dangers of punching lay persons. The court's decision provides clarity on the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials and the importance of balancing probative value with prejudicial effect. The final orders of the court were that the Crown may not call any evidence from Mr Jones of his conversation with the appellant regarding the appellant's claim to have knocked out two men 10 days prior to his uncle’s death. The Crown are entitled to lead from Mr Jones his claim that he imminently warned Mr Kingi of the dangers of punching lay persons.