A trial judge errs in principle under s 137 of the Evidence Act by requiring that evidence be unambiguous before it can be admitted. Provided evidence is capable of bearing the interpretation contended for by the Crown, the existence of alternative interpretations consistent with innocence does not, of itself, establish that the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value. The determination of which competing inference to draw from ambiguous evidence is a matter for the jury, not the judge. 'Substantially weakens' in s 5F(3A) means the exclusion must weaken the Crown case more than ephemerally or nominally — the weakening must be significant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 35 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 35 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.