Evidence of 'tick lists' and SMS messages suggesting past drug dealing constitutes discreditable conduct evidence under s 34P of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) and is propensity evidence under s 34P(2)(b), because the distinction between conducting a drug business and having a propensity to engage in that business is 'all but illusory'. Possession of unused plastic bags is not discreditable conduct evidence because s 34P catches past conduct, not future intentions. Where the proper use of propensity evidence is obvious and no realistic misuse is available, no propensity warning is required, though giving one can only favour the accused.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.