Coincidence evidence of repeated similar misstatements in loan applications may be admitted under s 98 to prove deliberate and dishonest state of mind, even where the misstatements lack 'striking similarity', provided there is a sufficient relationship between the events in purpose, circumstances and mode of conduct. The trial judge must consider innocent hypotheses arising from the Crown evidence but is not required to take into account the anticipated defence case. The boundary between tendency reasoning and impermissible propensity reasoning when proving state of mind was expressly left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.