Cross-examination of an accused about similarities between their current defence and a defence advanced in a prior trial does not constitute coincidence reasoning under s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and does not require a coincidence notice, where the purpose is to test the credibility of the accused's account rather than to prove the accused did a particular act or had a particular state of mind. A life sentence for conspiracy to import 1.11 tonnes of pure cocaine is not manifestly excessive where the offender played a principal organisational role and committed the offence within 10 months of release on parole from a 13-year sentence for a similar offence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.