A six-step sequential process must be followed when determining the admissibility of coincidence evidence under ss 98 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Asserted similarities for the purposes of s 98 must be capable of proof by means other than the facts sought to be established by the coincidence evidence; relying on the very facts to be proved as 'similarities' involves the logical fallacy of begging the question and those asserted similarities must be excluded from the analysis. The question whether similarities establish the improbability of coincidental occurrence is for the jury, not the judge; the judge's task is to assess whether the evidence is capable of having significant probative value.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 37 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 37 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.