45. In his submissions, counsel for the accused emphasised the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence the Crown proposes leading. By definition, tendency evidence is evidence of acts apart from those directly relevant to proving a charge against an accused. Often, those acts which are relied upon to prove a tendency will themselves be criminal, or disreputable. In all cases where tendency evidence is admitted it is important that the tribunal of fact is directed (in the case of a jury) or directs itself (in the case of a judge alone trial) as to how this evidence may be used, and how it may not. This is particularly so where the evidence suggests criminal or reprehensible conduct, because the prejudicial effect of such evidence is likely to be high. There is always the danger that a jury, without the benefit of appropriate direction, may simply reason that the tendency evidence establishes that the accused is a person of bad character, and therefore is likely to have committed the offence with which he or she is charged. In enacting s 98 the legislature must have been aware of this danger, and of the practice of the criminal courts of directing juries as to how such evidence may, and may not, be used. The fact that proposed tendency evidence may be prejudicial is a commonplace, and of itself is not a reason to reject it. Beyond the safeguard provided by appropriate judicial directions to juries on the use of this evidence, there is the additional safeguard provided by s 101(2). Not only must the probative value of the tendency evidence outweigh the potential prejudicial value, it must substantially outweigh it. The assessment required by s 101(2) is not, however, the same as that which was required in Pfennig: see Ellis, per Spigelman CJ at [94] - [98].