R v Maru

In this case, the appellant, Mikaera Te Aroha Maru, is appealing against the admissibility of evidence from four other women, Ms H, Ms B, Ms M, and Ms T, who have alleged sexual offences against him. The appeal challenges a decision by Judge Clapham to admit this evidence as similar fact evidence. The appellant argues that there is no underlying unity between his alleged offending and the allegations of the other women, and that admitting this evidence would be unfair and an abuse of process. The court must determine whether the evidence of the four women qualifies as similar fact evidence, and if so, whether there is sufficient illegitimate prejudice to the appellant to warrant excluding it.

The court first considers whether the evidence of the four complainants qualifies as similar fact evidence. It finds that the evidence of Ms H, Ms B, and Ms M does qualify as similar fact evidence due to the underlying pattern of the appellant's alleged conduct. However, the court is not satisfied that the evidence of Ms T should be admitted as similar fact evidence, as the incidents involving Ms T are essentially quite different from the other cases. The court finds that admitting Ms T's evidence would result in unfair prejudice to the appellant, as it would involve a complex set of facts and potentially reveal the appellant's possession of a firearm.

The court then considers whether there is sufficient illegitimate prejudice to the appellant in admitting the evidence of Ms H, Ms B, and Ms M as similar fact evidence. The court acknowledges concerns about the historic nature of the similar fact evidence of Ms H and Ms B, as well as the fact that the appellant has already faced multiple trials with respect to each complainant. However, the court finds that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any illegitimate prejudicial effect, and that the evidence of Ms H, Ms B, and Ms M should therefore be admitted as similar fact evidence.

The appeal is allowed with respect to the evidence of Ms T, as her evidence is not admissible as similar fact. The appeal is dismissed with respect to the evidence of Ms H, Ms B, and Ms M, whose evidence is admissible as similar fact.