Where coincidence evidence has very high probative value and the prejudice to the accused flows primarily from that probative value rather than from impermissible reasoning, the s 101(2) threshold will be met, particularly where the trial judge gives clear and direct instructions to the jury limiting the use of the evidence. The absence of evidence that a prior similar event involved criminal conduct does not diminish the probative value of the coincidence evidence where the similarities in the events are remarkable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.