Latest Cases Case Lookup LegislationBeta Notebook Research Briefs

R v Klobucar [2016] ACTSC 23 — Tendency Evidence & Coincidence Evidence — Barrister AI

R v Klobucar

[2016] ACTSC 23

Supreme Court of the ACT19 February 2016

More

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Tendency evidence
3. › application supported by both parties
4. › tendency to have a particular state of mind
5. › tendency to act in a particular way
6. › obsession with paedophiles
7. › perceive older males as paedophiles
8. › violence and aggression towards perceived paedophiles
9. › pattern of behaviour and thought
10. › evidence relevant to fact in issue
11. › clear proof of age required
1. Evidence
2. › Coincidence evidence
3. › particular state of mind
4. › general similarities
5. › differences in evidence
6. › state of mind may not have been voluntary or intentional
1. Statutes
2. › INTERPRETATION
3. › Uniform Evidence Legislation
4. › Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
5. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
6. › Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
7. › s 137
8. › tendency evidence
9. › coincidence evidence
10. › ‘probative value’
11. › ‘could’
12. › discretion
13. › mandatory requirement

Case Details

Citation[2016] ACTSC 23

CourtACTSC

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Decision Date19 February 2016

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by5

2021R v ForrestACTSC 104
2020R v VincentACTSC 279
2019R v TahanaACTSC 54
2016R v KandolaACTSC 395
and 1 more after sign-in

Relies on29

2016R v HuntACTSC 5
2015R v DjenadijaACTSC 29
2014R v ThompsonACTSC 276
2014R v VojneskiACTSC 66
and 25 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in

See how it works