The case confirms that where coincidence evidence has very substantial probative value arising from striking similarities across a series of offences, the ordinary prejudicial effect of the evidence contributing to proof of guilt is insufficient to engage the s 101(2) exclusion. The case also confirms that r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules operates to prevent reliance on appeal on evidentiary objections not taken at trial by experienced counsel, particularly regarding DNA evidence where the complaint goes to weight rather than admissibility.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.