When assessing cross-admissibility of coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), trial judges must not embark upon an unduly detailed search for dissimilarities that effectively reimports the 'striking similarity' test. The focus should be on whether there is sufficient 'underlying unity' between the events, and dissimilarities should only preclude cross-admissibility where they significantly diminish that underlying unity. In institutional abuse cases, the combination of abuse of trust by an adult male using weekend outings with young boys entrusted to his care can constitute sufficient underlying unity for coincidence reasoning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.