The 'close similarity' requirement for tendency evidence stated in [name withheld] v The Queen applies only where identity is 'at large' and there is little or no other evidence of identity; where there is other compelling evidence of identity, tendency evidence need not demonstrate close similarity to the charged conduct. The qualitative difference between the mode of property damage in tendency evidence and the charged offence (here, arson versus punching and smashing) does not preclude admission where the tendency is specifically described and the conduct occurred in the same context.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.