Admissibility of evidence — prior convictions — propensity evidence — obtaining by deception — Evidence Act 2006, s 43 — Freeman v R [2010] NZCA 230. The defendant faced multiple charges of obtaining by deception. He was alleged to have approached multiple elderly complainants and told them that their roofs needed repairs. He allegedly then accepted payments from the complainants, but carried out little or no work on their roofs; in some cases the roofs did not even require repairs. The Crown sought for the defendant's prior convictions for similar offending to be admitted as propensity evidence. The Crown argued that the prior convictions were relevant in that they showed the defendant's propensity to make to elderly people false representations that their roofs needed repair, and then take payment but fail to carry out the repairs; and also that they helped demonstrate the defendant's state of mind at the time of the alleged offending. The Court agreed with the Crown that the central issue was the defendant's intention to deceive. The offending for which the defendant had been convicted was similar to that alleged and therefore demonstrated his propensity to act in a certain way. It was also probative of the key issues of intention and deceit. The probative value of the evidence outweighed the risks of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The Court found that the proposed evidence was admissible. Judgment Date: 3 September 2020