In Victoria, an appellate court reviewing a ruling on the admissibility of coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) decides for itself whether the evidence is admissible, rather than applying the House v The King discretionary review standard. Features of alleged offending that merely reflect the institutional setting in which the offending occurred (such as the age range of detainees, the custodial location, and the accused's position of authority) are not relevant similarities for the purposes of s 98; there must be something distinctive about the way the accused took advantage of the setting. The possibility of concoction or contamination must be considered in assessing probative value under s 98.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 49 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 49 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.