Edit: The conflict between NSW and Victorian and Tasmanian law was brought into stark relief in KRI v The Queen [2012] VSCA 186, where Neave JA and King AJA said [at 39]:In considering whether there was a miscarriage of justice because the evidence lacked significant probative value and thus should not have been admitted as …
Continue reading BSJ v The Queen [2012] VSCA 93: the real possibility of concoction
SPA v The Queen is an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeal's reasons tend to be brief in these judgments. The Court is anxious to say no more than is necessary than to decide the admissibility question before it, knowing that it will possibly see the matter back before it again after the trial ends.In …
Continue reading SPA v The Queen [2011] VSCA 306: the possibility of concoction must be real
Have difficulty telling the difference between tendency and coincidence evidence?You're not alone. The last time I wrote a paper on tendency and coincidence evidence (when it was still known as similar fact and propensity) it took me so long that by the time I had finished it the law had changed again. With that experience …
Continue reading BP v R; R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 303: tendency or coincidence evidence?