For coincidence evidence to be cross-admissible in intra-familial sexual offence cases under s 398A of the Crimes Act 1958 or ss 98 and 101 of the Evidence Act 2008, there must be features of commonality or underlying unity between the accounts — the mere fact that a father in a position of authority engaged in conduct with a sexual connotation towards some children does not, without features of similarity, permit improbability of coincidence reasoning to support allegations of entirely different and more serious sexual conduct against other children. [name withheld] v [name withheld] direction should seldom proceed beyond directing the jury as to the potential disadvantage to witnesses from the omission to put matters in dispute; alluding to recent invention is rarely appropriate and requires a proper basis.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.