According to R v Hanson (2005) what three requirements did the court set out when the Crown is seeking to adduce evidence to establish their propensity to commit similar crimes to which they have alreayd committed? 1) Did the history of his convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged? 2) Did that propensity make it more likely that the defendant had committed the offence charged? 3) Was it unjust to

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is In R v Hanson (2005), the court set out three requirements when the Crown is seeking to adduce evidence to establish a defendant's propensity to commit similar crimes to those they have already committed. The first requirement is to determine whether the history of the defendant's convictions establishes a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged. The second requirement is to assess whether that propensity makes it more likely that the defendant had committed the offence charged. Finally, the court must consider whether it would be unjust to admit such evidence. These requirements serve as a framework for the admissibility of evidence related to a defendant's propensity to commit similar crimes.

According to R V Hanson (2005) What Three Requirements Did