Miles v R

[2013] ACTCA 52

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Interlocutory appeals
3. › Criminal proceedings
4. › Leave to appeal from pre-trial evidentiary ruling
5. › Whether decision attended by sufficient doubt
6. › Whether substantial injustice from refusal
7. › Whether grant would fragment trial process
8. › Whether exceptional circumstances exist
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Coincidence evidence
4. › Admissibility under s 98 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
5. › Whether similarities between events make coincidence improbable
6. › Assessment of probative value
7. › Whether probative value substantially outweighs prejudicial effect
8. › Nature of prejudice under s 101
9. › Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 98, 101

Quick Take

The four-part test for leave to appeal interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings in the ACT requires: (a) sufficient doubt about the decision; (b) substantial injustice from refusal; (c) consideration of fragmentation of the trial process; and (d) exceptional circumstances. The concept of 'prejudicial effect' in s 101 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) should be understood in substantially the same way as 'unfair prejudice' in s 137, not merely as the tendency of evidence to prove guilt. The test for coincidence evidence under s 98 does not require 'striking' similarities; the question is whether it is improbable the events happened coincidentally.