In a circumstantial identification case, evidence that an accused removed an electronic tracking device before the offences is irrelevant to identification where there is no evidence linking the removal to an intention to commit the charged offences, and the risk of impermissible use (propensity reasoning) cannot be sufficiently ameliorated by directions. Similarly, evidence of the bizarre circumstances of an arrest (beyond mere location) is irrelevant and prejudicial where it carries a real risk of being treated as post-offending conduct indicative of guilt.
The full text is available to signed-in members.