R v S (CA395/06)

In R v S, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to decide whether similar fact evidence from a previous rape conviction could be admitted at the appellant’s trial. The appellant faced 11 charges of sexual violation, threatening to kill, and male assaults female against the same complainant. The Crown sought to admit evidence from a victim of a rape committed by the appellant in 1986, which the Crown argued shared sufficient similarities with the current charges to be admissible. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the potential prejudice to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of admissibility for similar fact evidence, which requires a determination and weighing of the probative value and potential prejudice. The Court assessed the similarities and differences between the 1986 incident and the current charges, noting that while there were some similarities, the context and nature of the relationships were significantly different. The Court found that the potential prejudice to the appellant, particularly the risk that the evidence would overshadow the trial and influence the jury’s assessment of the other charges, outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The Court concluded that the illegitimate prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value and allowed the appeal, ruling that the proposed similar fact evidence was not admissible at the appellant’s trial.