Propensity evidence — DNA evidence — CCTV evidence — Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 101 — Evidence Act 2006, ss 40, 43 & 49. The defendant faced charges of dishonestly getting into a motor vehicle and aggravated robbery. It was alleged he got into a stolen car with others, went to a service station, forced his way in and stole $17,000 worth of cigarettes and tobacco. In this pretrial matter the Crown sought to introduce evidence of the defendant's two previous convictions for aggravated robbery. In one of these robberies, the defendant and others went to a dairy armed with a knife, taking tobacco and cash. In the other, the defendant had aided others in escaping the scene of a service station robbery. The Crown argued that the previous robberies showed the defendant's propensity to become involved in aggravated robberies of small businesses located along State Highway 1 close to where he lived. The defendant initially opposed both convictions being introduced as evidence, but later withdrew his opposition to the propensity evidence of the robbery of the dairy, which was therefore admitted. The Court found that the defendant's role in the second robbery, of the service station, was dissimilar to his alleged role in the aggravated robbery he was now charged with. In that robbery he had helped his co-offenders after offending had taken place. Therefore the Court found that it did not qualify as propensity evidence and ruled it inadmissible. Judgment Date: 6 July 2018.