Where surveillance evidence compels a finding that an accused committed one of several similar offences, that finding can ground the admission of coincidence evidence linking the accused to all offences sharing sufficient similarities in temporal proximity, geographical location, materials involved, and apparent motive. The trial judge's use of 'sufficient cogency' as the standard was not erroneous where the judge also correctly applied the four-question framework from CGL v DPP.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.