Plomp+v+R

Facts

 * A was charged with murder of wife, she drowned while swimming with A in the ocean. She was a good swimmer, and there was no logical reason as to why she should have drowned. A said she got caught by the undertow, and he was unable to recover her.
 * P led evidence that A had represented himself as a widower to another woman prior to his wife’s death. Question of whether this evidence was admissible?
 * D argued that it was circumstantial evidence of motive and should not be admissible until there was evidence that A had actually caused the death of his wife.

Held

 * High Court said that it was admissible, and should follow the rules of evidence. It rendered A more likely to commit the crime and was therefore relevant.
 * Dixon CJ - The evidence was relevant regardless of its circumstantial nature.
 * It met the core test of relevant under s.55, and it was not evidence which was inadmissible under other exclusionary provisions.