Reserved judgment — admissibility of evidence — propensity — earlier offending — aggravated robbery — Evidence Act 2006, s 43 — Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52 — Freeman v R [2010] NZCA 230 — R v Ngawhika [2016] NZCA 311 — Taha v R [2015] NZCA 107 — R v Naseri [2018] NZHC 727 — R v Mata [2009] NZCA 254. The defendant, along with a group of co-offenders, faced one charge of aggravated robbery. It was alleged that the group had gone to the private address of the complainants at midnight armed with a gun and crowbar, threatened them, ransacked the property and locked them in a room while one of the group stood guard with the gun. A scene examination later found the defendant's fingerprints on a surface at the complainants' house. The defendant had not made a statement to the police and denied his presence during the robbery. The proposed propensity evidence was an earlier instance of aggravated robbery. That offending involved the defendant and two other men robbing a dairy armed with guns, and running from the premises once the store attendant activated the alarm system. The Crown sought to admit the evidence in support of the defendant's tendency to act in a particular way, and put forward that it was extremely improbably that the defendant's fingerprints would be found at the scene of the alleged offending by virtue of coincidence. The Judge considered the frequency of offending, connection in time and circumstances, the extent of the similarities between the alleged offending and proposed propensity evidence, and the extent to which the offending is unique. The defence submitted that there was nothing in the alleged offending which distinguished the defendant from any other person facing similar charges. The Judge declined the application. The probative value of the proposed evidence was considered to be low, and there was a very real prospect of unfair prejudice to the defendant if it were to be admitted. Judgment Date: 26 March 2019