(1) This section applies in relation to evidence in criminal proceedings adduced by the prosecutor and so applies in addition to sections 84 and 85.
(2) Evidence that the defendant did or could have done an act or had or could have had a particular state of mind being an act or state of mind that is similar to an act or state of mind the doing or existence of which is is a fact in issue, is not admissible unless—
(a) the existence of that fact in issue is substantially in dispute in the proceedings; and
(b) the evidence has substantial probative value.
(3) In determining whether evidence referred to in subsection (2) has substantial probative value, the court shall have regard to, inter alia, the following matters—
(a) the nature and extent of the similarity;
(b) the extent of unusualness of the act or state of mind relative to the evidence;
(c) in the case of evidence of a state of mind, the extent to which the state of mind is unusual or occurs infrequently; and
(d) in the case of evidence of an act—
(i) the likelihood that the defendant would have repeated the act,
(ii) the number of times on which similar acts have been done, and
(iii) the period that has elapsed between the time when the act was done and the time when the defendant is alleged to have done the act that the evidence is adduced to prove.