Where coincidence evidence is relied upon for different purposes in relation to different complainants in the same trial — for example, to prove identity for some and non-fabrication for others — the trial judge must give distinct directions for each use, identifying with precision the similarities capable of supporting coincidence reasoning for each purpose, and must direct the jury that the evidence cannot be used to prove lack of consent. Failure of counsel to take exception to deficient directions does not preclude a successful appeal where the directions create a real risk of the jury using coincidence evidence for an impermissible purpose.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.