Where two events share striking similarities in the methodology used to set up the offending (same phone, same pseudonym, same language, same premises, close temporal proximity), the evidence of each event is cross-admissible as both tendency and coincidence evidence on the other, notwithstanding differences in how the offences were ultimately executed. Differences in the manner of execution do not detract from the improbability of coincidence where the set-up methodology is strikingly similar. For photoboard identification evidence, factors going to the witness's credibility and reliability (reluctance to participate, motivation to cooperate) cannot be taken into account in assessing probative value under s 137; only the circumstances of observation and the nature of the identification process are relevant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 29 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 29 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.