The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal a pre-trial ruling admitting coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 2008, holding that the cumulative force of six similarities between two incidents at the same address (same location, temporal proximity, similar motorbike, helmet, shoes, and presence of incendiary materials) was sufficient to meet the significant probative value threshold, notwithstanding that some individual similarities were less compelling and there were dissimilarities in modus operandi. The Court confirmed that where the nature and extent of similarities renders coincidence improbable, dissimilarities between the events cannot alter that position, and that the probative value of blurred CCTV imagery is a matter for jury assessment using common sense and life experience rather than necessarily requiring expert evidence. The Court also held that the prejudice arising from the applicant's use of a firearm on the second occasion did not require exclusion under s 101(2), as the firearm use was responsive to an interruption that did not occur on the first occasion and was therefore not a dissimilarity of real significance that the applicant would be forensically compelled to introduce.
The full text is available to signed-in members.