In multi-count fraud prosecutions, evidence of an accused's experience with earlier failed companies is admissible as evidence of knowledge and intention for later counts without complying with the tendency and coincidence evidence requirements of ss 97, 98 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995. A specific direction warning the jury not to use such evidence as tendency or coincidence evidence is not necessarily required and may be counterproductive. The question whether reasoning from continuity of state of mind constitutes tendency reasoning under s 97 was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.