Coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) requires a focus on similarities in events and/or circumstances that is more demanding than the tendency evidence inquiry under s 97; imprecise or generic similarities that disguise significant dissimilarities in the actual conduct alleged will not support coincidence reasoning. Where the essence of the charges against different complainants is radically different, severance should be ordered notwithstanding the presumption of joint trial under s 194(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic).
The full text is available to signed-in members.