In NSW, the common law principles from Hoch v R regarding the exclusion of similar fact evidence on the basis of possible concoction no longer operate as a freestanding rule but must be applied within the framework of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), particularly ss 135 and 137. Where evidence capable of disclosing tendency is tendered for a non-tendency purpose (such as to prove an admission or to rebut character), its admissibility is governed by the relevant Evidence Act provisions, with the Hoch concoction analysis informing but not determining the statutory evaluative exercise. The character evidence provisions in ss 110 and 112 are not overridden by Hoch principles.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 27 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 27 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.