Where the prosecution seeks to prove identity by pointing to similarities between an observed event and alleged offending, the evidence constitutes coincidence evidence under s 98(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) regardless of how the prosecution characterises it. The prosecution cannot circumvent the coincidence rule by labelling such evidence as 'circumstantial evidence of identity'. Section 95 prevents evidence that is in substance coincidence evidence from being admitted on an alternative basis without meeting the requirements of ss 98 and 101.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.