A judge sitting alone in a criminal trial is entitled, within reasonable limits, to explore issues of fact with both Crown and defence witnesses, with greater latitude than in jury trials. The principles from Galea v Galea apply with particular force in this context. A non-parole period of 40% of the standard non-parole period for an offence found to be just below mid-range objective seriousness is manifestly inadequate where the subjective circumstances do not warrant such a substantial departure. For tendency evidence under ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995, striking similarity is not required; the question is whether the evidence makes the facts constituting the offence charged significantly more likely.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 33 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 33 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.