Dissimilarities between events relied upon as coincidence evidence (including different participants) do not necessarily undercut the improbability of the events having occurred coincidentally. In a judge alone trial, there is no danger of misuse of coincidence evidence by a jury, which is relevant to the s 101(2) balancing exercise. A sentencing judge who addresses the effect of cumulation at length and tailors the sentence to minimise its impact has sufficiently adverted to the effect of producing a non-parole period ratio slightly exceeding 75%.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.