The case provides a practical illustration of the application of tendency evidence principles under ss 97 and 101(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) in the context of multi-count fraud prosecutions, confirming that cross-admissibility of evidence between counts in fraud cases is generally the least contentious kind of tendency evidence with limited risk of unfair prejudice. It also confirms that discrepancies between a Crown opening and the evidence adduced will not require jury discharge where the substance of the Crown case remains intact and the change is one of emphasis or detail rather than a fundamental shift.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.