Pattison v Tasmania

[2017] TASCCA 13

Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Propensity, tendency and co-incidence
4. › Admissibility and relevancy
5. › Tendency and co-incidence evidence under uniform evidence law
6. › Generally
7. › Trial judge erred in allowing tendency reasoning with respect to the appellant's interest in specialised fly-fishing equipment and possession of stolen fishing equipment
8. › Evidence incorrectly characterised as tendency evidence
9. › Lacked significant probative value and risk of impermissible reasoning.
1. Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss 97, 101(2), 135, 137.
1. Elomar v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 303, 316 ALR 206 applied.
1. IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14, 257 CLR 300; Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; Leonard v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 267, 67 NSWLR 545, referred to.

Citation[2017] TASCCA 13

CourtTASCCA

JurisdictionTasmania

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Already have an account? Sign in