The fact that a series of offences are committed in a distinctive way by more than one offender does not deprive the evidence of those distinctive characteristics of its force as tendency or coincidence evidence. The two-step analysis in R v Zhang must be kept separate: the first step (capability of rationally affecting probability) must not be conflated with the second step (evaluating whether the jury would assign significant probative value in light of all available evidence). When assessing severance, the interests of justice are not referable solely to the interests of the accused.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.