Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52 was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning the admissibility of propensity evidence against defendants facing criminal prosecution.

"[9] The judgment also stated that not "a great deal" could be gained from the pre-Evidence Act case law on propensity evidence.

Unfairness is generally found when and to the extent the evidence carries with it a risk that the jury will use it for an improper purpose or in support of an impermissible process of reasoning.

In assessing the probative value/unfair prejudice balance, the court may need to take into account the extent to which it considers a "proper use" direction in the trial judge’s summing-up is likely to guard against the risk of improper use.

[15] McGrath and Young also held that for propensity evidence “if probative value and the risk of unfair prejudice were equal, exclusion would only be required by s 43”.