The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of three prior incidents of discreditable conduct by the accused at his trial for arson.
The Crown argued the evidence was admissible to rebut innocent association, counter third-party propensity, corroborate an unsavoury witness, show a pattern of behaviour, and complete the narrative.
The court applied the principled approach from Handy and found that the probative value of the evidence was limited, partly due to collusion between witnesses, and was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
The application was dismissed.
