Coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) may be admitted to prove both that fires were deliberately lit and the identity of the person who lit them, based on the combined weight of similarities including timing, geographical proximity, method, and location along routes used by the accused, even where no single outstanding distinctive feature exists. The probative value of coincidence evidence must be assessed as a whole rather than by disaggregating individual elements.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.