A 22-year temporal gap between tendency events does not necessarily deprive tendency evidence of significant probative value under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), particularly where the tendency is specific (breaking into homes of lone women in the early hours to commit sexual offences) and there is strong circumstantial evidence (DNA and fingerprints) independently linking the accused to both incidents. The significance of temporal gaps in tendency evidence is fact-dependent and must be assessed in the context of the specificity of the tendency and the strength of other connecting evidence.
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.