Propensity evidence — theft — failing to answer Court bail — Evidence Act 2006. The defendant was bailed to appear at a hearing about the admissibility of propensity evidence at his trial, but failed to do so. A warrant was issued for his arrest. It was alleged that the defendant entered a supermarket, uplifted a box of beer and exited without paying. The propensity evidence was a conviction for theft of beer in an identical manner, at a different supermarket. The judge granted the application to lead propensity evidence at the trial. It was found that the former conviction demonstrated a propensity of the defendant to enter a supermarket, take alcohol and leave without paying. The judge also found that the defendant would not suffer any unfair predisposal by the fact finder. It was likely the trial would be heard by Judge alone, but if there was a jury a propensity evidence direction would be sufficient to avoid any illegitimate prejudice. Finally, the judge directed that if the defendant failed to appear at the next hearing, it could proceed in the defendant's absence. Judgment Date: 19 February 2018.