Evidence of motive is properly relied upon to link an accused to proven conduct as the conventional basis for proving identity; such reliance is neither speculative nor circular reasoning. Striking similarities in highly unusual features (such as improvised explosive devices and handmade crucifixes) across separate periods of offending can constitute very powerful coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). Prejudice from a jury learning of separate criminal proceedings against an accused is capable of being managed by judicial directions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.