Dissimilarities in the personal characteristics of an offender across two events do not preclude coincidence reasoning under s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) where those dissimilarities do not undercut the improbability that the events occurred coincidentally. The relevant question is whether the dissimilarities detract from the strength of the inferential mode of reasoning, not merely whether dissimilarities exist. The distinction in R v Razzak between using circumstantial evidence to bolster flawed identification evidence and using it as part of the Crown case as a whole does not apply where the identification evidence is unequivocal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.