A ruling under s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) excluding coincidence evidence must demonstrate that the trial judge has precisely considered what the section requires and has given adequately transparent expression to how the competing considerations of probative value and prejudicial effect have been balanced. A close family relationship between witnesses, a short delay before police involvement, and a minor discrepancy in evidence are individually and collectively insufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of concoction justifying exclusion of evidence agreed to have significant probative value.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 31 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 31 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.